IFR Planning – Six Questions Every Helicopter Crew Should Answer: Part 2 (#5-6) 

In the post IFR Planning – Six Questions Every Helicopter Crew Should Answer: Part 1 (#1-4), published on January 5, 2026, I outlined six questions pertinent to effective IFR planning: 

1. What is our fuel reserve and performance? 
2. Can we safely (and legally) take off? 
3. Can we return to the departure field? 
4. Can we reasonably expect to get in at the destination? 
5. Do we need an alternate (for the departure or destination), and can we meet the requirements? 
6. Then en route, can we fly the approach? 

The first four questions were reviewed in the post mentioned above, and I will address the remaining questions (#5-6) here. 

5. Do we need a destination alternate, and can we meet the requirements? 

The requirement for a destination alternate is typically driven by forecast weather relative to approach minimums during a defined planning window—often one hour before and one hour after the estimated time of arrival. 

However, many regulatory frameworks do not prescribe the same weather window for evaluating the alternate airport itself. In other words, while the destination may require a ±1-hour weather analysis, the alternate often does not carry an explicit time window requirement. 

As a matter of best practice, crews should apply the same time-based weather analysis to both the destination and the alternate. Using a consistent planning window helps ensure the alternate remains viable when it is needed, rather than merely meeting a technical requirement for a short period of time. 

Forecast interpretation further complicates alternate planning. Doctrine does not always clearly define how to treat qualifiers such as chance, occasional, tempo, or possibility. In the absence of explicit guidance, good airmanship dictates planning to the worst reasonable condition reflected in the forecast. If weather at the destination or alternate could reasonably fall below minimums, crews should plan accordingly. 

Crews often stop planning at a single alternate. However, thorough planning will frequently identify multiple suitable options. Maintaining awareness of these additional alternates as a low-IFR flight progresses provides flexibility and better decision-making than relying solely on the formally filed alternate. 

Two common alternate-planning pitfalls deserve specific attention: 

• Alternate Not Authorized (ANA) –  : 
  An airport may be unsuitable as an alternate due to an unmonitored facility, lack of approved weather reporting, or inadequate navigation coverage. These limitations are frequently overlooked during planning. 
• Non-standard alternate minimums and approach chart symbology – : 
  Crews are often confused by the “inverse A” symbol on approach charts. 
  • An “inverse “A” without “NA” applies non-standard weather minimums to “aircraft other than helicopters” and does not apply to helicopters. 
  • An “inverse A” with “NA” applies to all aircraft, including helicopters, and indicates the procedure is not authorized for use as an alternate. 

Understanding this distinction ensures an alternate’s viability for helicopter crews. 

6. Can we fly the approach? 

Similar to adjusting your destination alternate in flight, this is a question that will often be asked in the middle of a mission. Some commercial operators—and some military services—do not permit flying an approach if the weather is reported below minimums. Others allow it. 

Regardless of authorization, the real question remains: should we? 

Policy, Judgment, and Responsibility 

The vast majority of my flying experience has been in a service with some of the least conservative IFR planning requirements. For operational missions, crews may launch with ¼ statute mile visibility—and with supervisory approval, SAR crews may launch in zero/zero conditions. Similarly, approaches may be flown regardless of reported weather. 

With that latitude comes responsibility. Crews must ask themselves: 

• Should we take off? 
• Should we fly the approach? 

This broad authority exists to enable critical, life-saving missions when no other courses of action exist. Many other missions can—and should—wait. 

When Waivers Reduce Risk 

There are circumstances where waiving an IFR requirement—deliberately and with appropriate approval—can be safer than strict compliance. 

One example involves departure alternates. At a coastal airfield I operated from for several years, poor weather on the coast frequently coincided with excellent weather inland beyond a coastal mountain range. On long-range offshore missions, we did not have the required single-engine performance to reach an inland departure alternate at launch weight. However, we did have the ability to jettison fuel and restore single-engine performance if needed. 

In that scenario, it was far safer to: 

• Depart IFR with a waiver 
• Maintain the safety margins provided by the IFR system 
• Retain a clear, well-briefed contingency plan 

…than to depart VFR in quarter-mile visibility near terrain. 

Today’s autopilot and flight management systems provide capabilities that were unimaginable just a generation ago. Advanced automation was designed to be used. Professionalism demands that we ask these six questions to embrace IFR and fully exploit the safety and operational efficiency these systems provide.