Under the 1-2-3 rule, when is an alternate not required?

Under the 1-2-3 rule, when is an alternate not required?

• A. Destination weather meets the 1-2-3 rule; no alternate is required.
• B. Alternate is always required.
• C. IAP presence at destination eliminates the need for an alternate.
• D. Non-standard minima mean no alternate.

Answer: (A)

Under IFR planning, the 1-2-3 rule guides when you can skip filing an alternate. If the forecast for your destination at the estimated arrival time shows a ceiling at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation and visibility of at least 3 statute miles, and there is a published instrument approach available for that airport, you do not need to designate an alternate. This combination gives a reasonable expectation of landing at the destination without diverting, even if conditions nearby degrade. Simply having an instrument approach at the airport isn’t enough by itself—you must also have the forecast weather meeting the 1-2-3 thresholds. Non-standard minima can affect approach difficulty and minimums, but the decision about an alternate still rests on whether the forecast meets the 1-2-3 criteria with a suitable approach.

Under IFR planning, the 1-2-3 rule guides when you can skip filing an alternate. If the forecast for your destination at the estimated arrival time shows a ceiling at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation and visibility of at least 3 statute miles, and there is a published instrument approach available for that airport, you do not need to designate an alternate. This combination gives a reasonable expectation of landing at the destination without diverting, even if conditions nearby degrade. Simply having an instrument approach at the airport isn’t enough by itself—you must also have the forecast weather meeting the 1-2-3 thresholds. Non-standard minima can affect approach difficulty and minimums, but the decision about an alternate still rests on whether the forecast meets the 1-2-3 criteria with a suitable approach.