N-reg - mandatory alternate for any IFR flight plan (non IAP destination)

NCYankee wrote:

The flight could be conducted if the destination had no approaches, but not if it had approach(s) none of which the aircraft was equipped to fly.

Lawyer Logic. Now you know why our insurance is so expensive in the US. Understand that lawyers become judges and you have circle completed.

You might think that there are two reasons why one could not fly an approach at a destination, 1) there are no approaches or 2) The aircraft is not equipped to fly the available approaches. It is legal to file and fly to the airport based on case 1 if there is an alternate in the flightplan. It is never legal to conduct a flight in case 2, regardless if an alternate is specified. Does not make sense, but that is what the regulations state and the FAA General Counsel interprets the two cases.

It is a perverse response. How can the fact that it has approaches make it “worse” than one without approaches?

Thanks. I now understand the question, and why it’s an interesting one. I remain, probably just as you are, puzzled by the answer! Is there a follow up?

Some have argued that if the airport has instrument approaches, but that the aircraft is not equipped to fly them, the airport can be treated the same as an airport that had no approaches for that aircraft and in that case the flight could be conducted as long as an alternate was filed that the aircraft was equipped to fly. This opinion from the FAA Chief Counsel says no, this is not permitted. The flight could be conducted if the destination had no approaches, but not if it had approach(s) none of which the aircraft was equipped to fly.

The question asked was not the one answered. When there is no approach at an airport, it is clear that one needs to always file an alternate. Less clear is the case where there is an approach at the destination, but the aircraft is not equipped to fly it. An example would be the airport only has an RNAV (GPS) approach, but the aircraft is not equipped with a GPS. Can one select the airport as a destination and treat it as if it were an airport without an approach if one files an alternate airport that the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the airport had no approaches, it would be legal to file it as long as there was an alternate airport filed. To land at the destination, it would have to be VFR at the MIA.

It would be interesting to know what was going through Mr Collins’s mind when he wrote the question to which the opinion responds. Assuming that was the one you refer to, Peter.

The 1-2-3 rule is still in place and confirmed by the chief counsel’s opinion which was about do you need to file an IFR alternate if the destination does not have an instrument approach. The answer is yes.