[index] [month] [prev] [next] [thead-prev] [thread-next]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:39:47 -0800, "Bill Lind" <blind@innercite.com>
wrote:

>This kind of makes sense to me except for one thing in my case. Remember
>that the little airport is at 2500 ft and the large airport is at 20 ft, so
>if I go first to the small airport (home) I'll be limited to a 5000 foot MVA
>and may not be able to see the field even though I can get in with a 3000
>foot MSL ceiling.

You're still making the small mistake of thinking that what you file
is what you have to fly. The rules about alternates, etc are required
by the regs for *planning* purposes.

1. File either way you want to. It doesn't matter. (Although filing to
your destination probably makes sense. "Diverting" to a better
instrument approach seems more logical than diverting to the one
without an instrument approach).
2. Get enroute weather updates from Flight Watch
3. If the destination weather appears to suggest it would work,try
your home airport first.
4. If the destination weather suggests that the area may be below your
safety tolerance at home, go for the alternate.

=======================================
______|______ Mark Kolber
\(o)/ Denver, Colorado
o O o www.midlifeflight.com
=======================================
email? replace "spamaway" with "mkolber"

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: File for destination (Was IFR flight plan), Stan Gosnell
Next message: Re: IFR flight plan - Alternate required, Barry
Next message in thread: Re: File for destination (Was IFR flight plan), Mick Ruthven
Previous message in thread: Re: File for destination (Was IFR flight plan), Stan Gosnell