Departure Alternate

[PTK]

I came across an excellent article on how helpful it can be to have a plan, including a departure alternate, in an IFR departure. The author makes the very valid point on how a plan on "what to do now" greatly reduces the stress of last minute decision making and guesswork.

West, Jeff Van. "Expecting Immediate Failure." Plane & Pilot, Sept. 2017, pp. 30-33.

 

 

[kpaul]

Having a plan is always a good idea. 

First, in our planes I am not sure why would ever depart needing a departure alternate.  That would assume you are taking off below landing minimums for that airport. I would make the argument that there are not many instances where an argument for that is valid.  Second,  It is tough to make it to an alternate in a single engine aircraft if you have an engine problem.  So in the worse case situation of an engine failure in IMC an alternate is not of much use.  Thirdly, see point one-why are you departing if the weather is that low?

[N201MKTurbo]

When I was doing my ATP training the instructor made me verbalize what we would do if we lost one engine or both engines after departure. It included altitudes, airspeeds and where we would land off airport.

 

If you figure all this out before you advance the throttles there is no decisions to make. You just do as you planned.

With a single engine airplane the decisions are a lot simpler. If the engine quits before some altitude you land where you choose before departure. If higher you turn back to the airport.

Additionally, on an instrument departure, you plan to return to the airport or a nearby airport if you need to abort, so have your plates ready for that or be able to pull them up instantly.

[Bob - S50]

2 hours ago, kpaul said:

Having a plan is always a good idea. 

First, in our planes I am not sure why would ever depart needing a departure alternate.  That would assume you are taking off below landing minimums for that airport. I would make the argument that there are not many instances where an argument for that is valid.  Second,  It is tough to make it to an alternate in a single engine aircraft if you have an engine problem.  So in the worse case situation of an engine failure in IMC an alternate is not of much use.  Thirdly, see point one-why are you departing if the weather is that low?

There are reasons other than engine failure that you might choose to land shortly after takeoff.  Failure of the gear to retract, partial loss of power, loss of the alternator, smoke or fumes, or medical issues.  I'm sure there are others.

At my home drone, there is only one approach and it only gets me within 857' of the ground.  However, within a reasonably short distance there are several airports with minimums to as low as 200'.

My personal minimums would be having a takeoff alternate at which the current and forecast weather is at least 200' above minimums.  That being the case, I would leave my home airport knowing I can probably not get back in as long as I can get into one of the others (BFI, TIW, OLM, PWT, PAE for example).

[Rick Junkin]

Identifying a takeoff alternate is something that the guys in the Fly Like The Pros video series advocate. Their video on GNS430/530 operations is available the PilotWorkshops.com, which is where I was introduced to them. Jeff Van West is one of the regular "round table discussion" CFIIs on PilotWorkshops.com, so its no surprise that he has included that idea in an article. As you're probably aware, declaring a takeoff alternate is something that the "big boys" do.

The points made thus far are all valid, both for and against. There are a lot of other reasons you may not be able or want to return to your home drome, even though most of them are unlikely. It certainly doesn't hurt to know what your options are and to have a pre-planned course of action for abnormal events on or after takeoff. In my personal case there are quite a few options that allow me to continue straight ahead, or nearly so, to recover at another nearby airport rather than try to work the problem single pilot IFR while making a turn back to my home airport. I certainly don't advocate a takeoff alternate as a requirement, but it is certainly another tool that can be be used in the planning and risk mitigation process.

Cheers,
Rick

[kortopates]

I see @Bob - S50 and I are in similar situations. Frankly, I look at it as if my home base requires an alternate IFR departure airport for any IMC departure. Good risk management is based on recognizing threats of all kinds and developing a mitigation strategy or plan in advance, just as @N201MKTurbo was also suggesting. (I do the same emergency departure brief as I ask my students to do.) My base also has high minimums.  Two approaches have minimums at 1000' and 1100' agl. But even if the ceilings are higher than that I still likely won't be heading back to my departure runway unless I can do so VFR. But the decision is based on my departure procedure too since takeoff direction plays a big role in this decision just like it does in the emergency brief for VFR departures when annunciating which runway I will turn back too if I have the required altitude. So depending on direction, my base is only a couple minutes from the FAF of an approach to a near by airport - much closer than to either FAF for my airport. Secondly while both of my approaches begin at 5000' my alternate begins at less than 3000'. With all these considerations, it's very clear I can get down much faster and without needing to climb up all the way up to 5K, nor do the long down wind leg so to speak to get either of my home base FAFs. The nearby airport is a much more realistic option if my emergency is due to partial power as well. These issues are worth considering on unfamiliar destinations as well. But of course these options need to be considered in the flight planning phase which is really the intent of the IFR alternate. The IFR alternate concept is much more valuable than just considering weather minimums.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited September 1, 2017 by kortopates

[Hank]

Departure alternates are simple:  I always depart from the field where I last landed.

For flights into IMC, I never take off if I can't land again right away. A friend in a 310 waited until a nearby field was above minimums, and on climbout his back seater knocked out the Emergency Exit window, so they landed at the nearby alternate. You never know . . . .

(No, the window was never found.)

[M016576]

 

Its all about managing the risk you're willing to take.  We're flying single engine recips... if something goes wrong... even with just one cylinder, you automatically may lose 17% HP, 25% HP, 50% HP or 100% HP.  Soooo.... it's better to have a plan to land off field (and hopefully not need it), no matter if it's IFR or VFR.  What that means to me, based on my experience and training, is that I need between 600-1000' to find a landing site upon gaining visual with the ground (if I don't already see it) and set myself up... and that assumes the best case scenario (i.e.- I'm not looking at a hill full of trees).  Your mileage may vary, of course... but if the weather is lower than about 600-1000' (hard IFR above, and depending on terrain), I'm probably not going.  Especially if I've got passengers.  

Is it legal to take off, part 91, at or below minimums for the lowest precision approach? Yes.  Is it wise? That depends on the amount of risk you're willing to assume to make the flight happen.

edit: if it's for work, then I don't really have a choice- I'm going flying if it's 200-1/2 or better and I have a viable alternate for landing. What I'm referring to above is in the mooney.

Edited September 1, 2017 by M016576