Proper IFR Route
- Thread starter 172SK
- Start date
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Dunno. What sort of plane, and what equipment?
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Neither. You would have to file it as departing K50, route ICT V77 TOP, destination KFOE. "V77" is ambiguous - You need to specify where you enter *and leave* the airway. Since you're /U, you can't fly direct to an intersection on the airway, so you need to go to ICT. Also, you need to allow for an approach at the other end, and the only approaches you can fly in a /U airplane at KFOE are the ILS and the NDB, both of which start with a transition route from the TOP VOR.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
You can't file a Victor airway without specifying both an entry point and an exit point that are part of the airway. Thus, neither of the routings would work. Since you have only VOR's, your first point would have to be something to which you could navigate directly, such as a VOR in the direction you're planning to go, like Emporia (EMP). From there, you could file direct to a point to which you can navigate and from which the only approach you can fly (the ILS or LOC Rwy 31) could be flown, such as TOP VOR or the Riply NDB (if you have an ADF). Your route of flight block would be simply EMP FO or EMP TOP.
And you could also file the route Kent suggested, although it would be longer.
And you could also file the route Kent suggested, although it would be longer.
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,096
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
Welcome to the board. Feel free to visit again.
roncachamp
Final Approach
For filing purposes you can't go wrong with K50..ICT.V77.TOP..KFOE. It's something you can fly and something the computer will accept, but you'll likely be vectored at each end.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yep - The main reason I suggested that route is that he did specify V77.
However, the EMP VOR is 66nm away from K50 - So, you're outside the service volume. That's not going to work either. Using the El Dorado NDB would have worked, but the freq is crosshatched and the box says "Check NOTAMs" so presumably that NDB is permanently OTS.
So, now we're back to going to the ICT VOR to start with. The only practical way to make the route I posted shorter is to exit the airway at DIETS and fly directly to the LOM (FO/RIPLY) - Don't forget to maintain at least 3700 feet until RIPLY.
If you're up on your NDB navigation, that option will save you 22nm.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
SierraKilo,
I often will try out a routing on www.fltplan.com first - it often gives good guidance including 'recently filed routes', ie:
(is it irony that they spell error incorrectly?)
I often will try out a routing on www.fltplan.com first - it often gives good guidance including 'recently filed routes', ie:
(is it irony that they spell error incorrectly?)
Attachments
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Good catch. I'm not used to the variable chart scaling with my new IPad/Foreflight system yet.:wink2:
roncachamp
Final Approach
Yes, but the clearance to do so requires radar monitoring by ATC.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
...and that you already be receiving the navaid "suitable for navigation." That's why the OP can't go direct EMP -- it's outside the volume, and you won't be receiving it while on the ground at K50 when getting your clearance.
What's "suitable for navigation"? Best definition I've heard is ID received, stable needle, and positive TO/FROM flag.
roncachamp
Final Approach
That was given in the question.
chucky
Line Up and Wait
Is that a requirement on the controller or on the pilot? I guess the proper IFR clearance, if he wanted to fly that way, would be something like 'runway heading, radar vectors Emporia, direct'.
roncachamp
Final Approach
On the controller. See JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control paras 4-1-1 and 4-1-2.
Not at K50, the heading would have to be issued to apply only within controlled airspace. See para 4-3-2.
chucky
Line Up and Wait
Oh, right. It's on the pilot to get up to 700ft AGL safely. I note there are no departure procedures there. One further question (apologies for the thread-jack) - how does a controller deal with that kind of an entry into controlled airspace? In principle, the aircraft can enter controlled airspace anywhere in the vicinity of the airport on any heading. Is there a block of airspace that is cleared for the time interval specified in the clearance?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
No, all the OP said was "you're receiving a signal." That's not the same as receiving a signal which is "suitable for navigation." One can be receiving a signal with a shaky needle or ambiguity flag, or without a valid ID, and one would be not only illegal but also unwise to follow it.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
700 AGL (the base of controlled airspace there) is not a magic number in that regard. You'd have to reach the minimum instrument altitude (as defined in 91.177), and since there are no published terminal procedures for K50, the "standard" departure procedure described in AIM section 5-2-8 (runway heading to 400 above the departure end of the runway, then on course, maintaining a climb gradient of at least 200 ft/nm to the minimum instrument altitude) do not provide guaranteed obstacle clearance. You're entirely on your own to determine and execute your departure so you reach the mnimum instrument altitude without hitting anything. Where there are no published instrument procedures (as it is at K50), the controller has no responsibility in that regard other than to assign you an initial altitude which is above that 91.177-defined minimum IFR altitude -- how you get there is up to you, and you alone. That's why carrying current sectionals is such a good idea even if all you fly is IFR.
chucky
Line Up and Wait
Ah, yes, though for getting 'radar vectors direct', the relevant altitude would be the controller's MVA, wouldn't it? (Which would satisfy 91.177, of course)
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Right!
roncachamp
Final Approach
No, and since there is no IAP the area hasn't been assessed for obstacles on departure. The pilot is completely on his own.
Assuming other traffic is not a factor, in this case I'd issue an initial altitude of 4000 and a heading of 360 leaving 3000 MSL to join V77 in the vicinity of FLOSS. 3000' is the MVA.
A clearance void time can be issued, if the airplane is not airborne by that time the clearance is voided.
roncachamp
Final Approach
You're being silly again.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Not necessarily. MVAs are based only on obstruction clearance criteria and controlled airspace, radar vectors require an altitude at or above the MVA that ensures radar and radio contact.
Last edited:
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
It's more disturbing that they spelled "flight" incorrectly; the header bar for that window says "FLIGHR PLAN ENTRY ERRROR". Somebody was in a hurry to get their code done. Must have had to pee.
Last edited: