Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.

View Full Version : Alternate Weather Minimums N/A

01-16-2016, 05:43 PM
The GF is a dispatcher and came up with an interesting question. The an approach has a NOTAM saying that the alternate weather minimums are not authorized, can an operator with OpSpec C055 (derived alternate minimums) still use that approach for filing an alternate?

CO55 supersedes CFR 91.169 so operators do not need to consider the alternate weather minimums listed on the plate, however, the approach itself must be authorized for filing as an alternate. The reason an approach would not be authorized for filing as an alternate is because the approach NAVAID is not monitored.

Using that information, if the NOTAM states the alternate weather minimums are no longer authorized, I would take that to mean that the approach is not being monitored and therefore cannot be used. I could not find anything in the FARs, AIM, OpSpecs, or 8900.1 that specifically supports my conclusion or defeats it.

Does anyone have any official FAA documentation regarding the criteria that would cause a “alternate weather minimums not authorized” NOTAM, or a specific regulation that states an approach must be monitored to be used as an alternate?

01-16-2016, 08:40 PM
I don't have any official documentation, but we did have one regular airport in our system at one airline that we were told we could not file as an alternate airport under any circumstances. We had to make sure the dispatchers did not file the airport as an alternate if we needed one.

It was annotated in the 10-9 page as N/A for file as an alternate. It wasn't a NOTAM like your situation.
C055 wouldn't even come into play because you had have standard alternate weather minimums 600-2/800-2 in order to apply C055.

METO Guido
01-17-2016, 05:04 AM
N/A is a controlling statement I see little point attempting to defeat? Never much cared for derived mins. Easily misconstrued & further complicates the already inexact science that is forecasting.

01-18-2016, 05:30 AM
In 121, derived alternate mins (or other company-specific mins) always supersede TERPS published alternate mins with one exception: If TERPS says "N/A" then you cannot use that airport as an alternate.

I can't imagine that a NOTAMed "Alternate N/A" would be any different legally than a published "N/A" on the chart.