IFR Alternate Airports: The 1-2-3 Rule, 600-2 vs. 800-2, Why LPV Doesn't Count, and the GPS Rules
Updated: 5 days ago
When flying under Instrument Flight Rules, planning for the destination alone is not enough. Weather changes, approaches go NOTAMed out, and the forecast you briefed two hours ago may not be the weather you arrive to. To manage that risk, the regulations require you to plan an alternate airport under certain conditions — and the rules for when you need one and which airports qualify have more structure than most pilots carry around. The 1-2-3 rule is only the trigger. Behind it sit two conditions that must both be met to skip the alternate, a set of standard and non-standard alternate minimums, a widely misunderstood rule about GPS approaches (LPV does not get you 600-2), and a fuel requirement that applies whether or not you ever divert.
This post covers IFR alternate requirements in practical depth: what an alternate is for, the two conditions for not needing one (the 1-2-3 rule and the Part 97 approach requirement), how to read the TAF including TEMPO and PROB groups, the standard alternate minimums and the GPS/LPV rules done correctly, non-standard minimums and the ⧊A and NA symbols, the alternate-minimums-versus-landing-minimums distinction, fuel, takeoff alternates, and the checkride questions with answers.
Study this full length lesson (video, podcast, flashcards, and quiz) here: Full Length Lesson >
What an Alternate Airport Is
An alternate airport is a secondary airport listed in an IFR flight plan that you can divert to if landing at the intended destination becomes unsafe or impractical.
Alternates exist to ensure:
A safe landing option if the destination weather deteriorates below minimums
Compliance with fuel reserve requirements (you must carry fuel to reach it)
Reduced pressure to attempt an approach you shouldn't — you always have somewhere else to go
A planned, briefed Plan B rather than an improvised one
The planning-vs-reality distinction:
The filed alternate is a PLANNING requirement — it proves you have the fuel and a legal place to go
In flight, you may divert ANYWHERE suitable; you are not bound to the filed alternate
If a closer or better airport is above minimums when you need it, go there
The filed alternate is the floor of your options, not the ceiling
The Regulation: 14 CFR 91.169
The alternate requirement lives in 91.169, and it has two parts pilots must keep straight.
91.169(b) — when an alternate is required:
Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, an IFR flight plan must include an alternate airport — UNLESS two conditions are both met (next section)
The default is: file an alternate
The exception is: you may skip it if the destination meets specific criteria
Think of the alternate as required unless you earn the exception
91.169(c) — what makes an airport legal as an alternate:
The alternate minimums (standard 600-2 / 800-2, or non-standard as published)
Governs which airports you may list
Separate from the question of whether you need one
Two questions: do I need one? and which ones qualify?
91.167 — the fuel consequence:
If an alternate is required, you must carry fuel to the destination, then to the alternate, then 45 minutes at normal cruise
The alternate decision drives the fuel calculation
Covered below
The Two Conditions for NOT Needing an Alternate
The 1-2-3 rule is famous, but it's only half of the exception. To legally skip the alternate, BOTH of these must be true at the destination:
Condition 1 — The destination has a published instrument approach
The destination must have a standard instrument approach procedure (a Part 97 approach — any published IAP)
If the destination has NO instrument approach, an alternate is ALWAYS required, regardless of how good the weather is forecast to be
Logic: without an approach, you have no way to get in if the weather is lower than forecast
The condition pilots forget
Condition 2 — The 1-2-3 rule is met
For the period from 1 hour before to 1 hour after your estimated time of arrival
The forecast ceiling is at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation, AND
The forecast visibility is at least 3 statute miles
Throughout the entire two-hour window
If both are true: no alternate required (but you still carry destination fuel + 45 minutes)If either is false: an alternate is required
Why both matter:
A destination with a great forecast but no approach → alternate required
A destination with an ILS but a 1,500-foot forecast ceiling → alternate required
Only an approach AND 1-2-3 weather together let you skip it
Two gates
Applying the 1-2-3 Rule to the TAF
The rule is based on FORECAST weather, not current conditions. Here's how to actually apply it.
The window:
Compute your ETA at the destination
Look at the TAF for the period from 1 hour before to 1 hour after that ETA
Every forecast condition that applies during that window counts
Not just the exact ETA — the whole two hours
The simple question:
"From 1 hour before to 1 hour after my ETA, will the ceiling be at least 2,000 feet AND the visibility at least 3 miles — the entire time?"
Yes → no alternate required
No (at any point in the window) → alternate required
Handling TEMPO groups:
A TEMPO group (temporary fluctuations lasting less than an hour at a time) that overlaps your window and forecasts conditions below 2,000-3 COUNTS against you
FAA guidance treats TEMPO conditions as controlling for planning purposes
If the TEMPO says "TEMPO 1618 BKN015" and your window includes any of 16Z–18Z, the forecast ceiling is 1,500 — alternate required
Don't ignore TEMPO
Handling PROB groups:
A PROB30 (30% probability) group forecasting below-minimums weather in your window is treated conservatively — most instructors and examiners expect you to count it
The FAA's weather-briefing guidance is that PROB conditions should be considered in planning
If PROB30 shows 1,000 overcast in your window, file an alternate
When in doubt, the conservative reading wins
Handling BECMG and FM groups:
FM (from) is a hard change at the stated time — use the conditions in effect for each part of your window
BECMG (becoming) is a gradual change over the stated period — assume the worse of the two conditions during the transition period
Walk through the window hour by hour
Line up the TAF against the clock
What counts as "ceiling":
The lowest BKN (broken) or OVC (overcast) layer, or VV (vertical visibility)
FEW and SCT do not constitute a ceiling
A forecast of "SCT015 BKN025" has a 2,500-foot ceiling (the BKN layer)
Read the layers correctly
Weather sources for the rule:
The destination TAF (the primary source)
The Graphical Forecasts for Aviation (GFA — which replaced the old Area Forecasts) for airports without a TAF
A Flight Service briefing (which uses the same products)
Forecasts, not METARs
What if the destination has no TAF?
Many smaller airports have no TAF
Without a forecast, you cannot demonstrate that 1-2-3 is met for the window
The practical answer most examiners expect: file an alternate
Some pilots use a nearby TAF plus the GFA with judgment, but that doesn't satisfy the regulation's "appropriate weather forecasts" for that airport as cleanly — the conservative and defensible answer is to file one
No TAF = file an alternate
Choosing a Legal Alternate: The Standard Alternate Minimums
Once you've determined an alternate is required, it must meet the alternate minimums in 91.169(c). These apply to the FORECAST at your ETA at the alternate (use the alternate's own TAF).
Standard alternate minimums (when no non-standard minimums are published):
Alternate with a precision approach (ILS, PAR, or GLS):
Forecast ceiling at least 600 feet
Forecast visibility at least 2 statute miles
"600-2"
Alternate with only non-precision approaches (VOR, LOC, NDB, LNAV, LP, and — for planning purposes — LPV and LNAV/VNAV without baro-VNAV):
Forecast ceiling at least 800 feet
Forecast visibility at least 2 statute miles
"800-2"
Alternate with no published instrument approach:
The forecast ceiling and visibility must allow a descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under BASIC VFR
You must be able to get down and land visually
Rare, but legal
The "VFR descent" alternate
The memory aid:
Precision: 600-2
Non-precision: 800-2
No approach: descend from the MEA under basic VFR
These are the standard values
The forecast-at-the-alternate point:
You check the ALTERNATE's forecast at your ETA at the ALTERNATE (not the destination's window)
Use the alternate's TAF
A different airport, a different forecast, a different time
Don't apply the destination's TAF to the alternate
The GPS and LPV Rules — Done Correctly
This is the most commonly misunderstood part of alternate planning, and it matters because getting it wrong produces an illegal alternate.
LPV is NOT a precision approach for alternate planning:
LPV (Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance) is an APV — an Approach with Vertical guidance — not a precision approach under the regulatory definition
When planning an RNAV (GPS) approach at an alternate, you may NOT plan on the LPV minimums
You must plan using the LNAV or circling MDA on that approach
Which puts you in the 800-2 (non-precision) category — never 600-2
Why the FAA does this:
Alternate planning builds in margin against GPS integrity issues (RAIM/WAAS availability) at the time you'd actually need the alternate
Planning on the higher LNAV minimums ensures the alternate is usable even if vertical guidance isn't available when you arrive
Conservative by design
The vertical guidance is a bonus you can use when you get there, not a planning credit
The one vertical-guidance exception:
You may plan on the LNAV/VNAV DA at the alternate ONLY if your aircraft has approved baro-VNAV (barometric vertical navigation) equipment and you're using it
Not WAAS vertical guidance — baro-VNAV specifically
Most light GA aircraft don't have approved baro-VNAV
For almost all GA pilots: plan on LNAV/circling MDA (800-2)
The equipment rule — non-WAAS GPS (TSO-C129 / TSO-C196):
Older, non-WAAS GPS receivers (with fault detection and exclusion and a RAIM prediction performed):
You may plan a GPS-based approach at the destination OR the alternate — but not both
One of the two airports must have an approach you can fly WITHOUT GPS (ILS, VOR, LOC, etc.) that your aircraft is equipped for
At the alternate, plan using the LNAV/circling MDA (800-2)
The "not at both" rule
The equipment rule — WAAS GPS (TSO-C145 / TSO-C146):
WAAS-equipped aircraft may plan RNAV (GPS) approaches at both the destination AND the alternate
No RAIM prediction required (WAAS provides integrity)
BUT — at the alternate, you still must plan using the LNAV or circling MDA, not LPV
WAAS removes the "not at both" restriction; it does NOT upgrade the alternate to 600-2
Putting the GPS rules together:
Equipment | GPS at destination AND alternate? | Minimums to plan at the alternate |
Non-WAAS (TSO-C129/C196) | No — one or the other | LNAV or circling MDA (800-2) |
WAAS (TSO-C145/C146) | Yes — both allowed | LNAV or circling MDA (800-2); LPV NOT allowed for planning |
Baro-VNAV approved | Per the above | May use LNAV/VNAV DA |
The practical takeaway:
Any RNAV (GPS) approach at your alternate = 800-2 for planning (unless baro-VNAV)
If you want a 600-2 alternate, it needs an ILS, PAR, or GLS
Once you actually divert and fly the approach, you may use whatever minimums (including LPV) the approach and your equipment support — the LNAV restriction is a PLANNING rule, not a flying rule
Plan on 800-2; fly to whatever you've got
Non-Standard Alternate Minimums and the Symbols
Not every airport uses the standard 600-2/800-2. Some publish non-standard minimums, and some can't be used as an alternate at all.
Where to look:
The approach chart's briefing strip/notes
The "IFR Alternate Airport Minimums" section at the front of the Terminal Procedures Publication (TPP)
Non-standard minimums are listed by airport and approach
The ⧊A symbol (triangle with an "A"):
On an approach chart, a black triangle with a white "A" means non-standard alternate minimums apply to that airport
Go to the TPP alternate minimums section to find them
They are always MORE restrictive than standard (higher ceiling, greater visibility, or both)
Often tied to the specific approach or to equipment (e.g., "ILS 600-2, LOC 800-2¼")
The "NA" designation:
Some airports (or specific approaches) are marked "Alternate Minimums NA" — not authorized as an alternate
Common reasons: no weather reporting at the airport, no approach-control monitoring, or the approach depends on a facility not available for alternate use
An "NA" airport CANNOT be filed as an alternate, regardless of the forecast
Check for it
The "A NA" on GPS approaches:
Some RNAV (GPS) approaches carry "A NA" because the airport lacks weather reporting, or the approach has specific restrictions
Can't be used as the alternate approach
Look for it on the chart
A frequent trap
Why non-standard minimums exist:
Terrain or obstacles making the approach less forgiving
Unmonitored navaids
Lack of local weather observation (you can't verify the forecast on arrival)
The airport is less reliable as a fallback than the standard assumes
The practical habit:
Every time you pick an alternate, check the chart for ⧊A and NA
Pull the TPP alternate minimums page if ⧊A is present
Don't assume 600-2/800-2 without looking
Two seconds of checking
Don't confuse ⧊A with the Trouble ⧊T:
⧊A = non-standard ALTERNATE minimums
⧊T = non-standard TAKEOFF minimums and/or an ODP
Both are "go look it up" flags, for different purposes
Know which is which
Alternate Minimums vs. Landing Minimums
A distinction that resolves a lot of confusion.
Alternate minimums (planning):
The forecast weather required at your ETA at the alternate to legally FILE it (600-2 / 800-2 / non-standard)
A planning threshold, applied before departure
Higher than the approach's landing minimums (built-in margin)
About filing, not flying
Landing minimums (flying):
The published DA or MDA and visibility on the approach you actually fly when you divert
Applied in the air, on the approach
Lower than the alternate minimums
About flying, not filing
Why they differ:
The alternate minimums add margin because you're planning against a forecast hours in advance
The landing minimums are what the approach actually supports when you're there
Once you divert, you fly the approach to its landing minimums — not to 600-2 or 800-2
Plan high, fly to the chart
The example:
You file an airport with an ILS as your alternate because its forecast is 700-3 (meets 600-2)
You divert there; the actual weather is 300-¾
You fly the ILS to its published DA (say 200 feet and ½ mile)
The 600-2 was for filing; the ILS minimums are for landing
The LPV connection:
You planned the alternate on LNAV minimums (800-2) because that's the rule
When you divert and fly the RNAV (GPS) approach, you may use LPV if it's available
The planning restriction doesn't limit the approach you fly
Plan conservatively, fly what you have
Fuel Requirements and Alternates (91.167)
Filing an alternate directly changes the fuel you must carry.
If an alternate is required, carry enough fuel to:
Fly to the destination (including the approach)
Fly from the destination to the alternate
Fly 45 minutes at normal cruising speed after that
If no alternate is required:
Fuel to the destination plus 45 minutes
The 45-minute reserve applies either way
Skipping the alternate removes the alternate leg, not the reserve
The worked example:
Destination: 2:00 en route
Alternate: 0:30 from the destination
Reserve: 0:45
Required: 3:15 of fuel (minimum)
At 10 GPH: 32.5 gallons minimum aboard
The missed-approach reality:
The alternate leg realistically starts with a missed approach at the destination (climb, clean up, get a clearance)
Add fuel for the miss and the climb
The regulation's minimum assumes a clean diversion; real ones aren't
Plan above the minimum
Why the violation applies even if you never divert:
The fuel requirement is a PLANNING requirement
Departing without the required fuel aboard is a violation at the moment you depart
Whether you later need the alternate is irrelevant
Plan it, carry it
When an Alternate Isn't Required — But Is Still Wise
The regulation sets the floor. Judgment sets the standard.
Even with a 1-2-3 forecast, consider filing an alternate when:
The destination has a single runway (one closure or incident shuts the airport)
The destination has a single approach (one NOTAM takes it away)
NOTAMs affect approach lighting, navaids, or the runway
Terrain or obstacles make the approach demanding
The forecast is marginal or trending down
Thunderstorms, fog, or snow are in the picture
You're arriving at night
The cost of filing an alternate you don't need:
A few more gallons of fuel planning
Thirty seconds on the flight plan
That's it
The cost of not having one when you need it:
Improvising a diversion in IMC with declining fuel
The "where do I go?" problem at the worst moment
Pressure to continue a bad approach
Far higher
"An alternate may be legal to skip but still wise to file."
When in doubt, file one
It's free insurance
The professional habit
Takeoff Alternates vs. Destination Alternates
Two different concepts that share a word.
Destination alternate (this post):
Where you go if you can't land at the destination
Required under 91.169 when the two conditions aren't met
Applies to all IFR operations
Takeoff alternate:
Where you go if you have to return shortly after departure but the DEPARTURE airport is below LANDING minimums
Required for Part 121 (121.617) and Part 135 operators when departure weather is below landing minimums
Must be within 1 hour one-engine-inoperative for twins, 2 hours for 3+ engines
NOT required under Part 91 — but the logic ("can I get back in?") is the best personal-minimums tool for low-weather departures
Why the distinction matters:
Different triggers (departure weather vs. destination forecast)
Different regulations (121.617/135 vs. 91.169)
Different timing (immediate return vs. end of flight)
Don't conflate them
(For takeoff alternates in depth, see our takeoff minimums post.)
Part 121 and Part 135 Differences (Brief)
Commercial operators have parallel but stricter rules.
Part 121 (121.619):
The same 1-hour-before/after window and 2,000-3 concept for domestic operations
Alternate minimums come from the operator's OpSpecs (often derived from the published approach minimums with additives)
More conservative than Part 91 in practice
Flag operations have different rules
Part 135 (135.223 / 135.221):
Alternate required unless the destination forecast meets 1-2-3 for the 1-hour window
Alternate minimums per 135.221 and OpSpecs
Similar structure, tighter application
For the Part 91 pilot:
Know that the commercial rules exist and are stricter
The Part 91 rules (91.167/91.169) are what apply to you
The logic is the same; the margins differ
Borrow the conservatism
Checkride Questions — With Answers
"Explain the 1-2-3 rule."
An alternate is required unless, from 1 hour before to 1 hour after your ETA at the destination, the forecast ceiling is at least 2,000 feet AND visibility at least 3 SM — AND the destination has a published instrument approach. Both conditions are required to skip the alternate.
"What are the standard alternate minimums?"
Precision approach (ILS/PAR/GLS): 600-2. Non-precision approach: 800-2. No instrument approach: the forecast must allow a descent from the MEA and landing under basic VFR. Non-standard minimums (⧊A) override these.
"Can GPS be used at an alternate?"
Yes, with rules. Non-WAAS GPS: at the destination OR the alternate, not both. WAAS: at both. In either case, plan the alternate using the LNAV or circling MDA (800-2) — LPV cannot be used for alternate planning (it's an APV, not precision). LNAV/VNAV DA only with approved baro-VNAV.
"Does LPV make the alternate a 600-2 airport?"
No. LPV is not a precision approach for planning purposes. Any RNAV (GPS) approach at the alternate is planned at 800-2. You may fly the LPV when you get there.
"What if the destination has no TAF?"
You can't demonstrate 1-2-3 for the window without a forecast for that airport — file an alternate. (And if the destination has no instrument approach, an alternate is required regardless of forecast.)
"What if the TAF has a TEMPO below 2,000-3 in my window?"
It counts. TEMPO conditions are controlling for planning. File an alternate.
"Once you divert to the alternate, what minimums do you fly to?"
The approach's published landing minimums (DA/MDA), not the alternate minimums. The 600-2/800-2 were for filing. You may use LPV if available.
"What fuel is required with an alternate?"
Destination + alternate + 45 minutes at normal cruise (91.167). Without an alternate: destination + 45 minutes.
Common Pitfalls
Using current METARs instead of the TAF (the rule is forecast-based)
Checking only the exact ETA instead of the full 1-hour-before/after window
Ignoring TEMPO and PROB groups that dip below 2,000-3
Forgetting that a destination with no instrument approach always requires an alternate
Assuming "no TAF" means "no alternate needed" (it means the opposite)
Treating LPV as a precision approach for alternate planning (it's 800-2)
Planning GPS at both destination and alternate with a non-WAAS receiver
Not checking for ⧊A (non-standard) or NA (not authorized) at the alternate
Applying the destination's TAF to the alternate (use the alternate's own forecast at your ETA there)
Planning fuel only to the destination when an alternate is required
Confusing alternate minimums (filing) with landing minimums (flying)
Confusing a destination alternate with a takeoff alternate
Best Practices for Alternate Planning
File an alternate whenever the forecast is marginal, even if 1-2-3 is technically met
Choose alternates with multiple approaches and multiple runways
Prefer an alternate with an ILS if you want the 600-2 planning credit
Choose an alternate in a different weather regime from the destination (not 10 miles away under the same cloud deck)
Check ⧊A and NA every time
Use the alternate's own TAF at your ETA there
Plan fuel for a realistic missed approach plus the diversion, not just the regulatory minimum
Brief the alternate approach before departure as thoroughly as the destination approach
Re-evaluate in flight — the filed alternate is the floor, not a commitment
Conclusion
Alternate airport requirements are a cornerstone of IFR safety and risk management. The 1-2-3 rule is the trigger everyone remembers, but the full picture has more structure: the destination must have a published approach AND meet 1-2-3 across the entire two-hour window — read against the TAF including its TEMPO and PROB groups — or an alternate is required. The alternate itself must meet 600-2 (precision), 800-2 (non-precision), or its published non-standard minimums, and must not be marked NA. And for GPS: plan the alternate on LNAV or circling minimums at 800-2, because LPV is not precision for planning — non-WAAS users at one airport or the other, WAAS users at both.
Then carry fuel for the destination, the alternate, and 45 minutes — a requirement that binds the moment you depart. Smart pilots go further than the regulation: they file alternates in marginal weather even when legal to skip, they pick alternates with multiple approaches in a different weather regime, and they brief the alternate as carefully as the destination. Planning for the possibility of not landing where you intended is not pessimism — it's professionalism.
On the Written Test and Checkride
Alternate requirements appear on every instrument written and oral. The most commonly tested topics:
The 1-2-3 rule and the two conditions for skipping an alternate (91.169)
Standard alternate minimums (600-2 precision, 800-2 non-precision)
The GPS rules (non-WAAS one-or-the-other; WAAS both; LNAV/circling minimums at the alternate; LPV not for planning)
Non-standard alternate minimums (⧊A) and NA
IFR fuel with an alternate (91.167)
Alternate minimums vs. landing minimums
Takeoff alternate vs. destination alternate
Quick Reference
The Regulation:
91.169(b): when an alternate is required
91.169(c): alternate minimums
91.167: fuel
Two Conditions to SKIP an Alternate (both required):
The destination has a published instrument approach (Part 97 IAP)
The 1-2-3 rule: from 1 hr before to 1 hr after ETA, forecast ceiling ≥ 2,000 ft AND visibility ≥ 3 SM, throughout the window
Either fails → alternate required
No approach → alternate ALWAYS required
No TAF → file an alternate
Reading the TAF for 1-2-3:
Use the FORECAST (TAF/GFA), not METARs
Check the whole 2-hour window
TEMPO below 2,000-3 in the window → counts (alternate required)
PROB30 below minimums in the window → treat conservatively (alternate required)
FM = hard change; BECMG = assume the worse condition during the transition
Ceiling = lowest BKN/OVC/VV (not FEW/SCT)
Standard Alternate Minimums (forecast at your ETA at the ALTERNATE):
Alternate has... | Required forecast |
Precision approach (ILS, PAR, GLS) | 600-2 |
Non-precision only (VOR, LOC, NDB, LNAV, LP — and GPS approaches for planning) | 800-2 |
No instrument approach | Descend from MEA and land under basic VFR |
GPS at the Alternate (the rules):
LPV is NOT precision for planning → plan on LNAV or circling MDA → 800-2
LNAV/VNAV DA only with approved baro-VNAV
Non-WAAS (TSO-C129/C196): GPS approach at destination OR alternate, not both; one airport needs a non-GPS approach
WAAS (TSO-C145/C146): GPS at both allowed; still plan the alternate on LNAV/circling (800-2)
Once you divert, FLY whatever minimums the approach supports (including LPV)
Non-Standard Minimums and Symbols:
⧊A (triangle-A): non-standard ALTERNATE minimums — look them up in the TPP (always more restrictive)
NA: not authorized as an alternate (often no weather reporting) — cannot be filed
Don't confuse ⧊A with ⧊T (takeoff minimums/ODP)
Alternate vs. Landing Minimums:
Alternate minimums (600-2/800-2): for FILING (planning, before departure)
Landing minimums (DA/MDA): for FLYING the approach when you divert
Plan high, fly to the chart
Fuel (91.167):
With alternate: destination + alternate + 45 min at normal cruise
Without alternate: destination + 45 min
A planning violation at departure, whether or not you divert
Add fuel for a realistic missed approach
Takeoff Alternate (different thing):
For an immediate return when the DEPARTURE airport is below landing minimums
Part 121 (121.617) / 135: within 1 hr one-engine-out (twins), 2 hr (3+ engines)
Not required under Part 91 — but the logic is the best personal-minimums test
Legal to Skip but Wise to File:
Single runway or single approach at the destination
NOTAMs on approaches/lighting
Marginal or deteriorating forecast
Night, thunderstorms, fog, snow
Filing costs a few gallons; not having one can cost everything
Key Principle:
An alternate is required unless the destination has a published approach AND the forecast meets 1-2-3 (2,000 ft and 3 SM) for the full hour-before-to-hour-after window — read against the TAF including TEMPO and PROB. The alternate must meet 600-2 (precision), 800-2 (non-precision), or its published non-standard minimums, and not be NA. For GPS, plan the alternate on LNAV/circling at 800-2 — LPV never counts for planning — with non-WAAS at one airport or the other and WAAS at both. Carry destination + alternate + 45 minutes.
Study Full Aviation Courses:
wifiCFI's full suite of aviation courses has everything you need to go from brand new to flight instructor and airline pilot! Check out any of the courses below for free:
Study Courses:
Checkride Lesson Plans:
Teaching Courses:
Author: Nathan Hodell
CFI, CFII, MEI, ATP, Creator and CEO
Nathan is an aviation enthusiast with thousands of hours of flying and dual instruction over the past 15+ years. Through his aviation career he has been able to earn his ATP, fly as an airline pilot, own/operate flight schools, and create and host wifiCFI.