IFR Alternate question

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
neilharris360
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:37 pm

IFR Alternate question

Post by neilharris360 »

on the alternate chart it says

If there is one usable precision approach the weather requirements are 600 - 2 or 300 - 1 above the lowest usable HAT and visibility, whichever is greater.

Why are there two sets of numbers "600 - 2 or 300 - 1"

Thanks for the help


Heres a link to the AIM that shows the chart... its RAC 3.14.1
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publi ... 0.htm#3-14
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
meflypretty
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:50 am
Location: where you least expect it

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by meflypretty »

Add 300 and 1 to the lowest usable minimums. If it is greater than 600 and 2, you have to operate to the higher minima.
---------- ADS -----------
 
even paranoids have real enemies
User avatar
Bushav8er
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:37 am
Location: Northern Can

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by Bushav8er »

Answer is right there -
above the lowest usable HAT and visibility, whichever is greater.
Add each as mentioned, use the greater. Sometimes the 300-1 adds up to more than the 600-2.
---------- ADS -----------
 
turbo-prop
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:22 am
Location: Prairies

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by turbo-prop »

Lets say for example you are going to an airport like Churchill I believe minimums are 250AGL and 1/2 mile if you addthe 300 and 1 to this approach you would have 550 AGL and 1 1/2mile vis but because 600agl and 2 miles is higher you have to use 600agl and 2 miles. Now if your minimums were 400 and 1 and 1/2 miles when you add 300 and 1 to it your mins are now 700 and 2 and 1/2 miles.

You always have to use the higher of the 2. One more example is mins of 200 and vis of 2 miles your new minimums would be 600 agl (cause if you add 300 to the 200 you get 500 so 600 is the higher) and your vis would be 3 miles ( cause if you add 2 miles and 1 mle you get 3) which is the higher one.

Hope that hleps.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Beechball
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:23 am

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by Beechball »

Turbo Props' explanation is most accurate. You wont encounter this in the big city but it's very prevalent in the Rockies and the Arctic mountainous regions where you commonly have 400, 500, & 600 foot minimums published.
---------- ADS -----------
 
airdude
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:27 am

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by airdude »

Here's a good example for you:

Quesnel BC (CYQZ)
Non-Precision Only available so:
It should be 800 - 2 or 300-1 above lowest HAA/HAT
Lowest HAA is 1011-3 (don't forget we are talking about Height and not altitude, so use the (Number).

Which one will I choose (800-2 or 300-1)?

1011, 3 miles + 300, 1 mile = 1311', 4 miles

This minimum (1311-4) is higher than 800-2 so you have to use it for alternate planing purpose...

Hope this helps!

Airdude
---------- ADS -----------
 
sakism
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by sakism »

airdude wrote:1011, 3 miles + 300, 1 mile = 1311', 4 miles

This minimum (1311-4) is higher than 800-2 so you have to use it for alternate planing purpose...
Just note that you never need more than 3 miles visibility to use as an alternate.
---------- ADS -----------
 
SAR_YQQ
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: CANADA

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by SAR_YQQ »

What if you are an E-cat aircraft?
---------- ADS -----------
 
sakism
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by sakism »

Doesn't matter - CAP GEN states: Calculated visibilities shall not exceed 3 miles.
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by AuxBatOn »

I think it's a trick question. CAT-E minima are only published in military pubs (GPH200). We do not use civilian stuff, in Canada and the States anyways. By our rules, we have to apply whatever visibility we get (if it's 4 NM, then so it is).
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
User avatar
Dagwood
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:33 pm
Location: GFACN33

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by Dagwood »

airdude wrote:1011, 3 miles + 300, 1 mile = 1311', 4 miles
sakism wrote:Calculated visibilities shall not exceed 3 miles.
Only Transport would tell you that 3 + 1 = 3. :lol:

btw, Sakism has it right.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

Dagwood wrote: Only Transport would tell you that 3 + 1 = 3. :lol:
Actually TC's official position is 3+1 = 3 except for the times 3+1= 4 , or some other value the Minister has deemed applicable, refer to the CARS for further details. :smt040
---------- ADS -----------
 
GoinNowhereFast
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:35 pm

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by GoinNowhereFast »

Also, 3+1 = 2 if authorized in your air operator's certificate and deemed does not consitute a significant aviation hazard.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against stupidity
User avatar
Ref Plus 10
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:00 pm
Location: Wherever the winds may take me...and the paycheque

Re: IFR Alternate question

Post by Ref Plus 10 »

sakism wrote:
airdude wrote:1011, 3 miles + 300, 1 mile = 1311', 4 miles

This minimum (1311-4) is higher than 800-2 so you have to use it for alternate planing purpose...
Just note that you never need more than 3 miles visibility to use as an alternate.
Also note that the altitude should be rounded according to the CAP GEN as well, so the above example would then be 1300-3, or if it was 1321, it would then be 1400-3

Ref
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”