Flight Plan Requirements for Helicopter Operations Under Instrument Flight Rules

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