Which is true regarding alternate airfield requirements if the destination lacks a non-communication approach?

For an alternate airfield to be considered suitable, it must provide an approach that ensures safe landing capabilities and procedures, especially if the primary destination lacks a non-communication approach. If the destination lacks such an approach, the regulations stipulate that the alternate airfield must have an approach available that does not require two-way radio communication. This ensures that pilots can successfully navigate and land at the alternate even if they encounter communication issues.

Choosing this option reflects an understanding of the requirements for operating in situations where communication may be compromised. It's essential for safety that pilots have a fallback plan that allows them to rely on procedures that don't depend on radio communication, which could fail due to various operational challenges.

The other choices imply incorrect interpretations of the regulations. For instance, suggesting that the alternate must also lack such an approach misrepresents the requirement, and stating that there are no alternate requirements fails to recognize the necessary safety protocols in aviation operations. Similarly, limiting the requirement based on altitude is not accurate, as the necessity for an approach is independent of the altitude of the alternate airfield. Understanding these standards is critical for ensuring safe and compliant flight operations.