[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46834-46842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23662]
[[Page 46833]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 21, 27, 29, and 91
Flight Plan Requirements for Helicopter Operations Under Instrument
Flight Rules; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 46834]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 21, 27, 29, and 91
[Docket No. FAA-98-4390; Notice No. 98-12]
RIN 2120-AG53
Flight Plan Requirements for Helicopter Operations Under
Instrument Flight Rules
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the general operating rules
pertaining to flight plan requirements for flight by helicopters under
instrument flight rules (IFR) by revising the alternate airport weather
planning requirements, the weather minima necessary to designate an
airport as an alternate on an IFR flight plan, and the fuel
requirements for helicopter flight in IFR conditions. This proposed
rule is needed because current rules discourage helicopter operations
under instrument flight rules in marginal weather conditions. This
proposed rule would increase safety by allowing helicopter operators
access into the IFR system commensurate with the unique flight
characteristics of helicopters.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 2, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rulemaking may be delivered or
mailed, in duplicate, to: U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets,
Docket No. FAA-98-4390, 400 Seventh St., SW, Rm. Plaza 401, Washington,
DC 20590. Comments may also be sent electronically to the following
internet address: [email protected] Comments may be filed and/or
examined in Room Plaza 401 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays, except
federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William H. Wallace, General Aviation
Commercial Division (AFS-804), Flight Standards Service, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC
20591; telephone (202) 267-3771.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Comments relating to the environmental, energy, economic, federalism,
or economic impact that might result from adopting the proposals in
this notice are also invited. Comments must identify the regulatory
docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the Rules
Docket address specified above.
All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will
be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection
both before and after the comment closing date.
All comments received on or before the closing date will be
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed
rulemaking. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent
practicable. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed,
stamped postcard with those comments on which the following statement
is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 98-4390.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Availability of the NPRM
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 202-321-
3339), the Government Printing Office's electronic bulletin board
service (telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: 800-FAA-ARAC).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government Printing Office's webpage at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published
rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by mail by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202) 267-9677. Communications must identify the notice number of this
NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
NPRM's should request from the FAA's Office of Rulemaking a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, that describes the application procedure.
I. Background
Unique IFR Flight Capabilities of Helicopters
The current IFR flight plan filing rules were issued to provide
safe landing weather minima in IFR conditions for airplanes operating
under IFR. Apart from the distinction in Sec. 91.167 concerning the
amount of fuel a helicopter must carry versus the fuel an airplane must
carry, flight planning requirements, including alternate airport
weather minima, are the same for airplanes and helicopters even though
the operating characteristics of these aircraft are quite different.
Helicopters fly shorter distances at slower speeds than large
airplanes, and generally remain in the air for shorter periods between
landings. Therefore, a helicopter is less likely to fly into
unanticipated, unknown or unforecast weather. The relatively short
duration of the typical helicopter flight leg means that the departure
weather and the helicopter's destination weather are likely to be
within the same weather system.
Current Helicopter Instrument Flight Rules
Section 91.169 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
requires that, unless otherwise authorized by air traffic control
(ATC), each person filing an instrument flight rule (IFR) flight plan
must include, among other things, an alternate airport designation,
unless the exceptions in Sec. 91.169 (b) are met. These exceptions
specify that a person need not designate an alternate airport on an IFR
flight plan if 14 CFR part 97 prescribes a standard instrument approach
procedure for the first airport of intended landing and, for at least 1
hour before and 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at that
airport, weather reports or forecasts indicate that the ceiling will be
at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will
be at least 3 statute miles.
In addition, Sec. 91.169 (c)(1) states that unless otherwise
authorized by the Administrator, no person may include an alternate
airport in an IFR flight plan unless the current weather forecast
indicates that, at the estimated time of arrival at the alternate
airport, the ceiling and visibility will be at or above the following
weather minima: At airports for which an instrument approach procedure
has been published in 14 CFR part 97, the alternate minima specified in
that procedure or, if none are specified, for precision approach
procedures, a ceiling of 600 feet and visibility of 2 statute miles;
for nonprecision approach procedures, a
[[Page 46835]]
ceiling of 800 feet and visibility of 2 statute miles. Section 91.169
(c) (2) states that if no instrument approach procedure for the
alternate airport has been published in 14 CFR part 97, the ceiling and
visibility minima are those that allow descent from the minimum enroute
altitude (MEA), approach, and landing under basic VFR.
In addition, to fly under IFR conditions, a person operating a
civil aircraft must comply with the IFR fuel requirements of
Sec. 91.167. Section 91.167 requires that an aircraft must carry enough
fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions)
to--(1) complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing,
(2) fly from that airport to the alternate airport, and (3) fly after
that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly
after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
Section 91.167 (b) specifies that the requirement to have
sufficient fuel to fly to the alternate airport does not apply if 14
CFR part 97 prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure for the
first airport of intended landing and, for at least 1 hour before and 1
hour after the estimated time of arrival at that airport, weather
reports or forecasts indicate that the ceiling will be 2,000 feet above
the airport elevation and the visibility will be at least 3 statute
miles.
Helicopter Visual Flight Rules
In contrast to IFR flight minima, a helicopter operator may fly VFR
in Class G airspace clear of clouds if flying at a speed that allows
the pilot adequate opportunity to see any air traffic or obstruction in
time to avoid a collision (14 CFR 91.155 (b)(1)). In Classes C and D
airspace, and in Class E airspace below 10,000 feet mean sea level
(MSL), VFR flight is not permitted in an aircraft, including a
helicopter, when the flight visibility is less than three statute miles
and the distance from the clouds is less than 500 feet below, 1,000
feet above, or 2,000 feet horizontal (14 CFR 91.155 (a)). In Class B
airspace, VFR flight is permitted where a helicopter is clear of clouds
with three miles flight visibility. Section 91.157--Special VFR Weather
Minimums, allows special VFR operations under other weather minima and
requirements than those allowed by Sec. 91.155. As a result, a
helicopter may operate under VFR in weather conditions that would
otherwise preclude the operator from filing an IFR flight plan under
Sec. 91.169 because the alternate weather minima criteria cannot be
met. Often, IFR-equipped and certified helicopters are safely flown by
IFR-rated pilots under VFR in weather that might be characterized as
marginal VFR. Although such operations are permitted, the FAA would
prefer to make the benefits of IFR operation available to helicopters
that would otherwise fly in marginal VFR conditions. Therefore, the FAA
is proposing to revise the weather minima for the designation of
alternate airports to allow helicopter operators to take advantage of
the IFR system. In addition, the FAA is proposing to revise the fuel
reserve requirements for helicopter flight into IFR conditions.
The FAA is proposing to change the weather criteria in
Sec. 91.167(b)(2) for determining whether a helicopter operating in IFR
conditions must carry enough fuel to fly from the first airport of
intended landing to an alternate airport. Currently, additional fuel to
fly to an alternate airport need not be carried if part 97 prescribes a
standard instrument approach and if, for at least one hour before and
one hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling is at least
2,000 feet above airport elevation and the visibility is at least 3
statute miles. Under proposed Sec. 91.167(b)(2), a helicopter operator
would not have to carry additional fuel to fly from the first airport
of intended landing to an alternate airport if--(1) part 97 prescribes
a standard instrument approach procedure for that airport; (2) weather
reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that, at the
estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of
arrival, the ceiling would be at least 1,000 feet above the airport
elevation, or 400 feet above the lowest approach minima; and (3) the
visibility would be at least 2 statute miles. Thus, the proposed
rewrite of Sec. 91.167 would change the existing requirements for
helicopter operations in two ways. First, it would eliminate the
current requirement that weather reports or forecasts indicate that
certain weather minima exist for at least 1 hour before the estimated
time of arrival. Second, although the FAA proposes to retain a
requirement that weather forecasts or reports indicate that certain
weather minima exist at the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour
after the estimated time of arrival, those ceiling and visibility
minima would be reduced.
Under Sec. 91.169 (b)(2), the FAA is proposing to change the
existing requirement that each person filing an IFR flight plan must
include an alternate airport unless part 97 prescribes ceiling and
visibility reports for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the
estimated time of arrival. The proposal would eliminate the current
requirement that weather reports or forecasts indicate that certain
weather minima exist for at least 1 hour before the estimated time of
arrival. The proposal would also reduce the requirements that the
ceiling be at least 2,000 feet above airport elevation with visibility
at least 3 statute miles to requirements for a ceiling of 1,000 feet
above airport elevation, or 400 feet above the lowest approach minima
(whichever is higher), with visibility at least 2 statute miles.
As to situations involving flight to airports for which an
instrument approach procedure has been published for part 97, the
proposed rule would revise Sec. 91.169 (c)(1) to reduce the alternate
airport weather minima for helicopter flight plan filing purposes as
follows: (1) for precision approaches, ceiling 400 feet and visibility
of 1 statute mile, but never lower than the approach to be flown, and
(2) for non-precision approaches, ceiling of 600 feet and visibility 1
statute mile, but never lower than the approach to be flown.
Safety Benefits of IFR Operation
Aircraft operating under IFR are part of the national IFR system,
which includes the air traffic monitoring and control structure. This
system assures that both pilots and air traffic controllers know where
the aircraft is and can work together to avoid hazards and complete the
flight safely. In addition, immediate assistance is available in the
event of an emergency. Accident data collected by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) shows that weather-related accidents
occur far more frequently under VFR than IFR. Between 1987 and 1996, a
total of 275 weather-related helicopter accidents occurred, 202 during
flights for which no VFR flight plan had been filed, and 68 during
flights for which a VFR flight plan had been filed. During this same
period, only five weather-related helicopter accidents occurred during
flights for which an IFR plan had been filed. The NTSB data strongly
suggest that helicopter flights conducted under IFR are less likely to
have weather-related accidents than helicopter flights conducted under
VFR flight plans or those conducted without a flight plan.
In 1988, the NTSB published a report, entitled ``Commercial
Emergency Medical Service Helicopter Operations,'' which was initiated
because the accident rate for EMS operations was twice the rate
experienced by part 135 on-demand helicopter operations and one and
one-half times the rate for all turbine-powered helicopters. The NTSB
determined that marginal weather and inadvertent flight into instrument
meteorological conditions (IMC) were
[[Page 46836]]
the most serious hazards that EMS helicopters encounter. The report
states:
The Board believes that although the IFR system is not designed
optimally for IFR helicopters and that the nature of the EMS
helicopter mission further complicates this problem, the safety
advantages offered by IFR helicopters flown by current and
proficient pilots are great enough that EMS programs should
seriously consider obtaining this capability.
The NTSB also made the following observations:
Due to their speed and endurance, fixed-wing aircraft can fly to
their destination, fly another 100 miles to an alternate airport,
and then fly 45 minutes at cruise with little difficulty--the
capability called for by the IFR alternate airport requirements. A
helicopter, however, would have difficulty meeting these
requirements; it is a relatively slow aircraft with limited
endurance due to its high fuel consumption. Thus, the IFR alternate
airport requirements are one major reason why many EMS helicopter
programs are reluctant to invest in IFR-capable aircraft and pilots.
The Safety Board believes there is merit in the argument that
the current alternate airport requirements, while appropriate for
airplanes, are overly restrictive for helicopters; in the case of
EMS helicopters, the restrictions coupled with the lower VFR
minimums applicable to these operations, result mainly in
discouraging the wider use of IFR-capable helicopters.
Thus, the FAA believes that lowering the alternate airport weather
minima for IFR filing purposes will encourage helicopter operators to
use the IFR system and reduce the number of weather-related, VFR
accidents.
Anticipated Secondary Benefits of IFR Operation
In addition to the safety benefits discussed above, this proposed
rulemaking is expected to result in certain environmental and economic
benefits. Environmental benefits may result because IFR flights
generally are conducted at higher altitudes and therefore create less
overflight sound than VFR helicopter flights in marginal weather
conditions. Similarly, enhancing helicopter access to the IFR system is
expected to result in increased utilization of existing IFR-certified
and equipped helicopters, thereby yielding economic benefits in terms
of greater returns on investment, and more efficient use of equipment,
time and other resources. Economic costs and benefits are discussed
below under ``Economic Evaluation Summary.''
History of This Rulemaking
Over the past 15 years, there have been specific recommendations
from industry, and from joint efforts of the FAA and industry regarding
regulatory changes to safely expand helicopter access to the IFR
system. The FAA has been addressing these recommendations by working
with industry to identify regulations that prevent safe helicopter
operations in the IFR environment.
In 1975, the FAA issued Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
No. 29, which authorizes the Administrator to approve the carriage in
IFR operations of less than the 45 minutes, but not less than the 30
minutes, of additional fuel reserve required by Sec. 91.23 (c) (now
91.167(a)(3)) and to issue approvals for limited IFR operations for
certain transport category rotorcraft that are certified to only
operate under VFR. In 1979, the FAA undertook the Rotorcraft Regulatory
Review Program (44 FR 3250; Jan. 15, 1979), which was a comprehensive
review of rotorcraft operations and certification.
In an NPRM issued March 13, 1985 (50 FR 10144), the FAA proposed to
amend Sec. 91.23 (now Sec. 91.167) to reduce the fuel reserve
requirement for helicopters from 45 minutes to 30 minutes, the ceiling
requirement for helicopters from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet, and the
visibility requirement for helicopters from 3 miles to 1 mile. No
changes were proposed to Sec. 91.83 (now Sec. 91.169). As the FAA
stated in the preamble to the NPRM, the basis for the proposed
reductions was that a helicopter has the unique ability to reduce
airspeed safely on approach to as low as 40 knots, and is therefore
provided reduced visibility minima in part 97. The proposal went on to
say that because the helicopter, with its reduced minima, has a better
probability of completing the flight to the planned destination it
should be allowed a reduced fuel reserve. In the 1985 NPRM, the FAA
also stated that it had gained sufficient experience with operations
under SFAR No. 29 to conclude that reducing the required fuel reserve
would not decrease the level of safety.
On November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40692), the FAA published a final rule
which adopted the proposal under Sec. 91.23 to reduce the fuel reserve.
The FAA did not, however, adopt the proposal to reduce the ceiling and
visibility minima because a report entitled ``Weather Deterioration
Models Applied to Alternate Airport Criteria (Report No. DOT/FAA/RD 81/
92 (September 1981) had stated that ``any reduction in alternate
airport requirements should be offset by limiting the duration of the
flight for which the reduced requirements apply'' (p. 4-1). The
findings in that report, however, were preliminary, and in the 17 years
that have passed since it was issued, the FAA's experience with
helicopter IFR flight plan filing criteria indicates that the
preliminary concern for reduced helicopter ceiling and visibility
minima was over emphasized.
In 1982, the United States Army adopted reduced IFR alternate
airport weather planning minima and alternate airport selection
criteria for both helicopters and airplanes. The Army's criteria of a
ceiling 400 feet above the weather planning minimum required for the
approach to be flown, and visibility one mile greater than the weather
planning minimum required for the approach to be flown has been used
for over 16 years and thousands of flight hours with no mishap
associated with weather planning criteria. The U.S. Army's experience
demonstrates that reducing helicopter ceiling and visibility minima for
IFR flight planning results in a level of safety equivalent to the
current rule and offers greater operational flexibility for helicopter
operators.
In August 1993, a workshop conducted by the FAA with industry,
called the Extremely Low Visibility Instrument Rotorcraft Approaches
(ELVIRA) Workshop, resulted in a list of ``Ten Most Wanted'' changes
(see ``Extremely Low Visibility IFR Rotorcraft Approach (ELVIRA)
Operational Concept Development, Final Report,'' Report No. DOT/FAA/RD-
94/1,I. (March 1994)). The unprioritized list of 10 desired IFR system
enhancements included ``Rotorcraft Specific Minima'' for determining
the need for, and availability of, alternate airports for flight plan
filing purposes ( ELVIRA report, p. 3).
Since rotorcraft are for the most part range-limited, their
destination airport and alternate airport will most likely be in the
same air mass and consequently will have similar weather. In the ELVIRA
final report (p. 34), the FAA noted that the current regulations result
in a ``severe penalty in the productivity of helicopters operating
under IFR.'' In addition, the FAA observed that ``with certain weather
conditions it is often impossible for the helicopter operator to gain
access to the current IFR system, while VFR flight is allowed. * * *
[C]hanging this [the alternate airport minimums] to 400-1 for a
[helicopter] precision approach and 600-1 for a [helicopter] non-
precision approach procedure, will enable many more [helicopter] IFR
operations to take place while maintaining the same level of safety''
(pp. 34-35).
On February 23, 1995, Helicopter Association International (HAI)
petitioned the FAA for an exemption
[[Page 46837]]
from Sec. 91.169 (c)(1)(i), which provides that alternate airport
minima for a precision approach are a ceiling of 600 feet and
visibility of 2 statute miles. The petition asked the FAA to allow
lower alternate airport weather minima for IFR flight planning.
On April 24, 1996, HAI filed an amendment to its petition for
exemption from Sec. 91.169 (c)(1)(i), proposing, in part, to limit
operations under the requested exemption to those conducted by certain
operators named in the amended petition. The stated purpose of this
amendment was the further ``accumulation of data to prove the
operational safety of the use of such minimums.'' In addition, the FAA
has received 13 other petitions requesting amendments to Secs. 91.169
and 91.167 to allow helicopter operations with reduced alternate
weather requirements.
The FAA's action on this NPRM responds to the petitions for
exemption from HAI and others. With the publication of this NPRM, the
FAA is closing the docket on HAI's petition for exemption, and on the
petitions submitted by HAI and others for various amendments to
Secs. 91.169 and 91.167 and related regulations.
ARAC Working Group Recommendation
The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) was established
by the FAA to provide industry information and expertise during the
rulemaking process. In October 1991, an IFR Fuel Reserve Working Group
of the ARAC, General Aviation Operations Issues, was assigned the task
to ``evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of revising the fuel
reserve requirements for flight under instrument flight rules'' (56 FR
51744; Oct. 15, 1991). Later the working group also evaluated--(1) the
advantages and disadvantages of revised precision and non-precision
instrument approach minima and alternate weather minima, considering
the operational capability of the helicopter to decelerate before and
during arrival at the Decision Height or Minimum Descent Altitude,
including circling approaches; and (2) whether or not this capability
reduces risk and the probability of a missed approach and the need to
proceed to an alternate and meet the resulting regulatory alternate
fuel requirement. The working group, which consisted of representatives
from helicopter associations, helicopter manufacturers, helicopter
pilot associations, helicopter operators, and government agencies, met
numerous times between January 1992 and October 1997. This proposed
rule is based on ARAC's recommendation that was submitted to the FAA in
November 1997.
In their document, ARAC recommended that the FAA revise the weather
minima used to determine whether carriage of additional fuel to reach
an alternate airport is needed when flying in IFR conditions.
Specifically, ARAC suggested revising paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 91.167--
Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions, to state that: ``* * *
weather reports or prevailing weather forecast or combination of them
indicate * * * for helicopters, at the estimated time of arrival, the
ceiling will be 1,000 feet above the airport elevation or 400 feet
above the lowest approach minima, whichever is higher; and * * * at the
estimated time of arrival, the visibility will be at least 2 statute
miles.'' The ARAC's suggested revisions would create different ceiling
and visibility criteria for helicopters (as opposed to those for
airplanes), and would also change the requirement that those ceiling
and visibility criteria be in effect for at least 1 hour before and 1
hour after the estimated time of arrival.
ARAC also recommended that IFR flight plan requirements for
helicopters be amended by revising the alternate airport weather
planning requirements and weather minima necessary when designating an
alternate airport on an IFR flight plan. ARAC suggested that the FAA
revise paragraph (b) of Sec. 91.169--IFR flight plan: Information
required, to state that, if 14 CFR part 97 prescribes ``. . . a
standard instrument approach procedure for the first airport of
intended landing and the weather reports or prevailing weather forecast
or combination of them indicate . . . for helicopters, at the estimated
time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the
airport or heliport elevation or 400 feet above the lowest approach
minima, whichever is higher; and . . . at the estimated time of
arrival, the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.''
Under Sec. 91.169 (c), ARAC again suggested creating different IFR
alternate weather minima for helicopters performing precision and
nonprecision approaches (as opposed to those for airplanes). The new
criteria would apply when it would be necessary to include an alternate
airport in an IFR flight plan. Ceiling and visibility conditions at the
alternate airport would be for ``current prevailing weather forecasts .
. . at the estimated time of arrival'' (when no instrument approach
procedure has been specified in 14 CFR part 97 for an alternate
airport). The helicopter minima recommended by ARAC are as follows. For
a ``precision approach procedure . . . for helicopters, [c]eiling 400
feet and visibility 1 statute mile'' and for a ``nonprecision approach
procedure . . . for helicopters, [c]eiling 600 feet and visibility 1
statute mile.''
The FAA agrees with most of ARAC's recommendations, except the
elimination of the requirement under Sec. Sec. 91.167 (b)(2) and 91.169
(b) that weather report and forecast data be in effect for 1 hour after
the estimated time of arrival. The FAA is proposing to keep that
requirement. See ``Discussion of Proposed Rule'' below
II. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
Based largely on ARAC's recommendations, the FAA proposes to amend
the general operating rules pertaining to flight plan requirements for
flight by helicopters under IFR by revising the: (1) alternate airport
weather planning requirements; (2) weather minima necessary to
designate an airport as an alternate on an IFR flight plan; and (3)
fuel requirements for helicopter flight into IFR conditions.
The proposal reflects the differences in operational
characteristics between airplanes and helicopters by maintaining the
current requirements for airplanes while reducing the forecast ceiling
and visibility minima for helicopters. Under the FAA's proposed
Sec. 91.167 (b), fuel requirements for helicopter flights to an
alternate airport in IFR conditions would not apply to helicopters if
weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate
that, at the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after estimated
time of arrival at the intended destination, the ceiling will be 1,000
feet above the airport elevation or 400 feet above the lowest approach
minima and the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles. As
discussed above (under ``ARAC Working Group Recommendation''), in its
November 1997 submission to the FAA, ARAC recommended that the
Sec. 91.167 (b)(2) weather criteria be applicable at the estimated time
of arrival. The FAA, however, proposes that the weather criteria be
applicable at the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the
estimated time of arrival. Because weather can change suddenly and
unexpectedly, the FAA believes that this extra margin of safety is
necessary. The FAA specifically requests public comment on whether this
requirement would be reasonable.
The FAA also proposes to revise the requirements for helicopter
filing IFR flight plans under Sec. 91.169 (b) so that an alternate
airport designation would not be required on an IFR flight plan for
[[Page 46838]]
helicopters using standard instrument approach procedures if weather
reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that, at the
estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of
arrival at the intended destination, the ceiling will be at least 1,000
feet above the airport elevation, or 400 feet above the lowest approach
minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2
statute miles. As with the amendment of Sec. 91.167 (b)(2) (discussed
above), ARAC recommended that the Sec. 91.169 (b) weather criteria be
applicable at the estimated time of arrival. However, the FAA is
proposing that weather criteria be applicable at the estimated time of
arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival. Again, the
FAA believes that this extra margin of safety is necessary, but
specifically requests public comment on whether this requirement would
be reasonable.
In addition, the proposed rule would revise Sec. 91.169(c) to
reduce the alternate airport weather minima for helicopter IFR flight
plan filing purposes as follows: (1) for precision approach procedures,
a ceiling of 400 feet and visibility of 1 statute mile, but never lower
than the published minima for the approach to be flown; and (2) for
non-precision approach procedures, a ceiling of 600 feet and visibility
of 1 statute mile, but never lower than the published minima for the
approach to be flown.
The FAA is also proposing to remove ``Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) No. 29-4--Limited IFR Operations of Rotorcraft'' from
14 CFR parts 21 and 91, and notes referencing it from 14 CFR parts 27
and 29. This action is being taken because the SFAR does not include
the proposed provisions for alternate airport weather planning minima
and weather minimum necessary to designate an airport as an alternate;
therefore, if this proposal is adopted as final, SFAR No. 29-4 would no
longer be necessary. The FAA has not issued any approvals under SFAR
No. 29-4 in recent years and believes that all approvals previously
issued have either been surrendered or revoked, or have terminated.
While the FAA does not know of any operators that would be adversely
impacted by the removal of SFAR No. 29-4, the agency specifically
requests comments from operators that believe they would be.
Aside from the substantive amendments described above, the FAA is
also proposing to issue these amendments in clear, easy to follow
language. This is discussed below under ``III. Plain Language in
Government Writing.''
III. Plain Language in Government Writing
In response to the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security's recommendation that the FAA's regulations should be
simplified and, as appropriate, rewritten in plain English
(Recommendation 1.4; Final Report to President Clinton, February 12,
1997), as well as the June 1, 1998, Presidential Memorandum on ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' the FAA has attempted to make the
proposed regulatory text for Secs. 91.167 and 91.169 as easy to follow
as possible. Under Sec. 91.167, paragraph (a) does not contain any new
requirements, but would be clarified by moving the exception clause to
paragraph (a)(2), which it modifies. Section 91.169 (a)(2) does not
contain any new requirements, but would be clarified by moving the
exception clause to the beginning of the sentence to make it consistent
with Sec. 91.167 (a)(2). In addition, the FAA has made one minor
clarification to the airplane flight planning provisions in
Secs. 91.167(b)(2) and 91.169(b) by adding the word ``for'' before the
phrase ``1 hour after'' to make it consistent with the helicopter
flight planning provisions.
The FAA is setting forth the proposed revisions to Secs. 91.167 (b)
and 91.169 (b) and (c) in two formats, tabular and narrative (each
containing the same proposed new requirements). The FAA specifically
requests comments on whether the amendments set forth in this NPRM are
in clear language, and whether the tabular or narrative format in
Sec. 91.167 (b) and 91.169 (b) and (c) is preferable. Only one format
will be adopted at the final rule stage.
IV. Economic Evaluation Summary
This proposed rule is not considered a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The
proposed rule is not considered significant under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR
11034; Feb. 26, 1979).
Both the executive and legislative branches of government recognize
that economic considerations are an important factor in establishing
regulations. Executive Order 12866, signed by President Clinton on
September 30, 1993, requires Federal agencies to assess both the costs
and benefits of proposed regulations and, recognizing that some costs
and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt regulations
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of each regulation
justify its costs. In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
requires Federal agencies to determine whether or not proposed
regulations are expected to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and, if so, examine feasible
regulatory alternatives to minimize the economic burden on small
entities. Finally, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies
to assess the effects of proposed regulations on international trade.
This section of the preamble summarizes the FAA's economic and
trade analyses, findings, and determinations in response to these
requirements. The complete economic and trade analyses are contained in
the docket (see ``Addresses'' above).
Benefits
There are some non-quantifiable benefits that can be attributed to
this proposed rulemaking, such as the reduction in the level of
aircraft noise experienced by individuals on the ground when
helicopters fly at higher altitudes. These benefits are difficult to
accurately measure, and are discussed in qualitative terms. Other
benefits are more quantifiable and are derived from the reduction of
the number of fatal and serious accidents that occur in marginal
weather conditions. The estimated reduction in the number of accidents
is due to the increased level of safety afforded pilots that fly IFR.
These benefits are classified as quantitative.
Qualitative Benefits
Due to the lack of feasible alternatives to VFR, during periods of
marginal or inclement weather conditions, a helicopter operator often
will forsake the IFR system because he or she is unable to meet the
flight plan requirements and criteria for specifying an alternate
airport. As such, the helicopter operator will fly either VFR or
Special VFR at lower altitudes. By flying at lower altitudes, third
party costs (increased level of aircraft noise), are experienced by
individuals on the ground.
All noise has the potential to annoy because of interference with
speech, sleep, work, or other activities; however, aircraft noise is a
function of aircraft altitude, and noise or sound energy can be reduced
by increasing the flight altitude. Therefore, by providing the
opportunity to increase the altitude of a helicopter's flight during
IMC (instrument meteorological conditions), the proposed rule would
help to reduce
[[Page 46839]]
the sound energy on the ground generated by that helicopter. For
example, if a helicopter flying VFR at 250 feet above ground level
(AGL) in marginal weather conditions is able to fly IFR at 4,000 feet
AGL in the same marginal weather conditions, the reduction in sound
energy is 24 dB, which represents a decrease to less than one-hundredth
the level of sound intensity experienced by third parties on the
ground.
Another benefit of this NPRM that is difficult to quantify is
reducing the opportunity cost of upper management time. Opportunity
cost is a forward-looking view of costs that are forgone by not putting
a firm's resources to its highest use. Due to the high level of concern
many companies have regarding the safety of their senior executives,
the safe operation of their corporate helicopter receives a high
priority. As such, during periods of marginal or adverse weather
conditions most corporate operations are canceled rather than attempt
to fly VFR under those conditions. A portion of the opportunity cost
can be measured by the lost productivity associated with the extra time
involved by senior executives using alternate forms of transportation,
such as automobiles. With the average annual chief executive
compensation at $2.3 million, an hour delay could amount to as much as
$1,100, not including the salaries of other senior executives traveling
with the chief executive, or the cost of the helicopter and pilot
sitting idle due to marginal or adverse weather conditions. By enabling
more helicopter pilots to operate under IFR in marginal weather
conditions, these opportunity costs could be avoided.
Quantitative Benefits
The quantitative benefits of this proposed rulemaking are derived
from a potential reduction in weather-related accidents. Weather-
related accidents are a common, serious type of accident experienced by
helicopter operators, but this type of accident can be prevented by
enhanced helicopter operator access into the IFR system. The FAA
believes that the proposed rule will result in a level of safety
equivalent to the current rule and offer greater operational
flexibility for helicopter operators. The FAA bases this on the U.S.
Army's experience of no mishaps over the past 16 years associated with
weather planning criteria resulting from reduced helicopter ceiling and
visibility minima for IFR flight planning.
In this analysis, the FAA used data involving helicopter accidents
where weather was a cause or factor over a 10-year period from 1987 to
1996. The data used was obtained from the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) database. The most recent accidents that occurred
in 1997 are still under review, and thus no data from 1997 is used in
this analysis.
Since 1987, there have been a total of 275 helicopter accidents
where weather was a cause or factor of the accident. The total includes
202 accidents involving VFR flight without a flight plan filed, 68
accidents where a VFR flight plan was filed, and five accidents where a
IFR flight plan was filed. The 202 accidents involving VFR flight is
approximately 40 times greater than the five accidents that occurred
under an IFR flight plan. In addition, the 68 accidents where VFR
flight plans were filed is approximately 14 times greater than the five
in IFR operation. When the 202 accidents are added to the 68 accidents,
the result is a total of 270 accidents, which represents approximately
98 percent of all the accidents that occurred when weather was a cause
or factor. These statistics suggest the potential safety benefits of
flying IFR in IMC.
Of all helicopter flights flown, approximately 10 percent are
performed under an IFR flight plan. As such, the number of accidents
flying IFR would be expected to be approximately 10 percent of the
total accidents, or 28 accidents. However, of the 275 helicopter
accidents where weather was a cause or factor of the accident, instead
of 28 accidents, only five accidents occurred under an IFR flight plan.
Because the actual number of accidents (five) is approximately 18
percent of the expected number of accidents (28), this information
suggests that IFR flight is safer than VFR flight when marginal weather
conditions are present.
When the fatalities sustained while flying with no flight plan (74)
are added to the fatalities sustained while flying with a VFR flight
plan (63), the result is 137 fatal injuries. That represents a fatality
rate more than five times the 27 fatal injuries sustained under an IFR
flight plan. Similarly, when serious injuries sustained while flying
with no flight plan (32) are added to the serious injuries sustained
while flying with a VFR flight plan (24), the result is 56, compared to
only one serious injury sustained in IFR flight. In aggregate, the
fatal and serious injuries that occurred when no IFR flight plan was
filed is approximately seven times those that occurred under an IFR
flight plan. The FAA is aware that even though weather was a cause or
contributing factor in all of these accidents, this proposed rulemaking
would not have prevented all of these accidents or injuries; however,
the data suggest that IFR flight is safer than VFR flight when marginal
weather conditions are present.
In 16 of the 270 accidents involving VFR flight, in addition to
weather being a cause or contributing factor, the pilot-in-command had
instrument ratings for helicopters, or for helicopters and airplanes.
Although the weather minima for the destination airport is not known,
the FAA believes that with the revised weather minima provided by the
proposal, the pilots with instrument ratings could have taken advantage
of positive air traffic control services (such as obstacle avoidance)
and flown IFR. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the weather at
the destination airports, the FAA recognizes that all 16 of these
accidents may not have been avoided. Therefore, the FAA applied the
same percentage described above regarding the expected and actual
accidents under IFR (5/28 18%) where weather was a cause or
factor of the accident and determined that three of the 16 accidents
(16 x 18% 3) would not have been avoided if this proposed
rulemaking had been in effect.
To determine the potential benefits that would result from this
proposed rule, the FAA estimated the average costs associated with all
the injuries and fatalities sustained in the 16 accidents involving VFR
flight where the pilot-in-command had instrument ratings for
helicopters. A critical economic value of $2.7 million and $518,000 was
applied to each human fatality and serious injury, respectively. This
computation resulted in an estimate of approximately $53 million in
casualty costs. Also, the value of the destroyed aircraft was estimated
to be $7 million. If this rulemaking helps prevent 80 percent of these
injuries and fatalities that resulted from 16 accidents, the expected
potential safety benefits over the next 10 years would be approximately
$48 million ($34 million, discounted).
Costs
The proposed rule would not impose any additional equipment,
training, or other cost to the aviation industry. Therefore, the FAA
believes there is no apparent compliance cost associated with the
proposed rule. However, the FAA solicits comments regarding the
plausibility and extent of the adverse impacts on operators from
implementation of the proposed rule.
Comparison of Costs and Benefits
The NPRM would not place any additional requirements on the
aviation industry. Therefore, there are no compliance costs associated
with the
[[Page 46840]]
proposed rule. Qualitative benefits from the proposed rule would come
from reducing the level of aircraft noise experienced by individuals on
the ground and from cost savings associated with reducing
transportation time for high-level corporate executives. The
quantitative benefits come from a potential reduction in accidents by
enabling more helicopter pilots to operate under IFR in marginal
weather conditions. Over the next 10 years, the estimated safety
benefit of the proposed rule could be $48 million, or $34 million,
present value. Therefore, the FAA has determined that the proposed rule
is cost beneficial.
V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Assessment
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, was
enacted by Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily
and disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA
requires that whenever an agency publishes a general notice of proposed
rulemaking, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis identifying the
economic impact on small entities, and considering alternatives that
may lessen those impacts must be conducted if the proposed rule would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This proposed rule will impact entities operating under 14 CFR part
91. The FAA believes there is no compliance cost associated with the
proposed rule. Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities; however, the FAA solicits comments from operators that
feel they would be negatively impacted from implementation of the
proposed rule.
VI. International Trade Impact Statement
This proposed rule is not expected to impose a competitive
disadvantage to either U.S. air carriers doing business abroad or
foreign air carriers doing business in the United States. This
assessment is based on the fact that this proposed rule would not
impose additional costs on either U.S. or foreign air carriers. This
proposal would have no effect on the sale of foreign aviation products
or services in the United States, nor would it affect the sale of
United States aviation products or services in foreign countries.
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any
provision in a Federal agency regulation that would impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development
of regulatory proposals.
This proposed rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental
or private sector mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.
VIII. Federalism Implications
The proposed regulations would not have substantial direct effects
on the states, on the relationship between the national government and
the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order
12612, it is determined that this proposed regulation would not have
federalism implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
IX. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS).
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, Appendix 4 paragraph 4(j),
regulations, standards and exemptions (excluding those, which if
implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment)
qualify for a categorical exclusion. The FAA proposes that this rule
qualifies for a categorical exclusion because no significant impacts to
the environment are expected to result from its finalization or
implementation. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, paragraph 32, the
FAA proposes that there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting
preparation of an environmental assessment for this proposed rule.
It is expected that the proposed rule would increase the safety,
but not change the number of helicopter operations conducted in the
United States. In particular, changes in instrument flight rules (IFR)
applied to helicopter flight requirements would result in helicopters
flying at higher altitudes during instrument meteorological conditions
(IMC) with less associated ground level noise. During visual
meteorological conditions, helicopters are expected to continue to
operate as they do currently under visual flight rules. These changes
in operating rules pertaining to flight plans and fuel for flights by
helicopters operating under IFR are not expected to result in any
adverse environmental effects since there should be no adverse change
in the noise levels currently experienced in the human and natural
environment, and no adverse additional impacts on biological, cultural
or aesthetic resources. Introduction of exotic species is not expected
to be influenced by the proposed rule, and neither would air quality,
freshwater supplies nor the practice of traditional belief systems in
natural environments.
Comments relating to the proposed categorical exclusion or to any
environmental impacts that might result from adopting this rule are
invited.
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507 (d)), there are no requirements for information collection
associated with this proposed rule.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 21
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 27
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
[[Page 46841]]
14 CFR Part 29
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airports, Aviation safety.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA proposes to amend parts
21, 27, 29, and 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR parts
21, 27, 29, and 91) as follows:
PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113,
44701-44702, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
SFAR No. 29-4 [Removed]
2. Part 21 is amended by removing Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) No. 29-4--Limited IFR Operations of Rotorcraft.
PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
3. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
SFAR No. 29-4--Editorial note [Removed]
4. Part 27 is amended by removing the Editorial Note for Special
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 29-4.
PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
5. The authority citation for Part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
SFAR No. 29-4--Editorial note [Removed]
6. Part 29 is amended by removing the Editorial Note for Special
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 29-4.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
7. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1156, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722,
46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531,
articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation
(61 stat. 1180).
SFAR No. 29-4 [Removed]
8. Part 91 is amended by removing Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) No. 29-4.
. Section 91.167 is revised to read as set forth below. The
revision is displayed in two formats (all-narrative and partially
tabular), each containing the same information, so the public can
comment on which format is preferable.
Option 1--All-Narrative Format
Sec. 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless
it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and
weather conditions) to--
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from
that airport to the alternate airport; and
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for
helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if part 97 of
this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure for
the first airport of intended landing, and the weather reports or
forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate the following:
(1) For airplanes. For at least 1 hour before and for 1 hour after
the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet
above the airport elevation and the visibility will be at least 3
statute miles.
(2) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1
hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be 1,000
feet above the airport elevation, or 400 feet above the lowest approach
minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2
statute miles.
Option 2--Partially Tabular Format
Sec. 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless
it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and
weather conditions) to--
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from
that airport to the alternate airport; and
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for
helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if part 97 of
this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure for
the first airport of intended landing and the weather is as described
in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The weather reports and/or Indicate that the ceiling
prevailing weather forecast will be And the visibility will be
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For airplanes: for at least one hour At least 2000 feet above At least 3 statute miles.
before and for one hour after the airport elevation.
ETA.
For helicopters: at the ETA and for At least 1000 feet above At least 2 statute miles.
one hour after the ETA. airport elevation, or 400
feet above the lowest
approach minima, whichever
is higher.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Section 91.169 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) to read as set forth below. The revisions are displayed in two
formats (all-narrative and partially tabular), each containing the same
information, so the public can comment on which format is preferable.
Option 1--All-Narrative Format
Sec. 91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.
(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each
person filing an IFR flight plan shall include in it the following
information:
(1) Information required under Sec. 91.153(a) of this part;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an
alternate airport.
(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if part 97 of
this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure for
the first airport of intended landing and the weather reports or
forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate the following:
(1) For airplanes. For at least 1 hour before and for 1 hour after
the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet
above the airport
[[Page 46842]]
elevation and the visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.
(2) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1
hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least
1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or 400 feet above the lowest
approach minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at
least 2 statute miles.
(c) IFR alternate airport weather minima. Unless otherwise
authorized by the Administrator, no person may include an alternate
airport in an IFR flight plan unless current weather forecasts indicate
that, at the estimated time of arrival at the alternate airport, the
ceiling and visibility at that airport will be at or above the
following alternate weather minima:
(1) If an instrument approach procedure has been published in part
97 of this chapter for that airport, the alternate airport minima
specified in that procedure, or
(2) If an instrument approach procedure has been published in part
97 of this chapter for that airport, but that procedure contains no
alternate airport weather minima, the following apply:
(i) For airplanes using--
(A) A precision approach procedure. The ceiling will be 600 feet
and the visibility will be 2 statute miles.
(B) A nonprecision approach procedure. The ceiling will be 800 feet
and the visibility will be 2 statute miles.
(ii) For helicopters using--
(A) A precision approach procedure. The ceiling will be 400 feet
and the visibility will be 1 statute mile, but never lower than the
published minima for the approach to be flown.
(B) A nonprecision approach procedure. The ceiling will be 600 feet
and the visibility will be 1 statute mile, but never lower than the
published minima for the approach to be flown.
(3) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part
97 of this chapter for the alternate airport, the ceiling and
visibility minima are those allowing descent from the MEA, approach,
and landing under basic VFR.
* * * * *
Option 2--Partially Tabular Format
Sec. 91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.
(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each
person filing an IFR flight plan shall include in it the following
information:
(1) Information required under Sec. 91.153(a) of this part;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an
alternate airport.
(b) Paragraph (a) (2) of this section does not apply if part 97 of
this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure for
the first airport of intended landing and the weather is as described
in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The weather reports and/or Indicate that the ceiling
prevailing weather forecast will be And the visibility will be
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For airplanes: for at least one hour At least 2000 feet above At least 3 statute miles.
before and for one hour after the airport elevation.
ETA.
For helicopters: at the ETA and for At least 1000 feet above At least 2 statute miles.
one hour after the ETA. airport elevation, or 400
feet above the lowest
approach minima, whichever
is higher.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
include an alternate airport in an IFR flight plan unless current
weather forecasts indicate that, at the estimated time of arrival at
the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility at that airport will
be as described in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ceiling will be And the visibility will be
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the instrument approach procedure in part 97 contains alternate
airport minima
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For airplanes and helicopters:
The alternate airport minimum The alternate airport
specified in that procedure. minimum specified in that
procedure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the instrument approach procedure in part 97 contains no alternate
airport minima
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an airplane precision approach:
600 feet.............................. 2 statute miles.
For an airplane non-precision approach:
800 feet.............................. 2 statute miles.
For a helicopter precision approach:
400 feet, but never lower than the 1 statute mile, but never
published minima for the approach. lower than the published
minima for the approach.
For a helicopter non-precision approach:
600 feet, but never lower than the 1 statute mile, but never
published minima for the approach. lower than the published
minima for the approach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no instrument approach procedure in part 97 for the airport
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The minima allowing descent from MEA , approach and landing under
basic VFR .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 28, 1998.
Richard O. Gordon,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 98-23662 Filed 9-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
