Teach me about T routes

[midlifeflyer]

If you take WDD at his word that he has "never" flown a V or T Route, then I'd say that speaks pretty poorly of the CFII that didn't, at least occasionally, have him intercept and fly an airway. Same with the DPE, though not as much. But I would have thought they'd have check his being able to work the airspace other than being able to fly Direct.

I take it you must disagree if you didn't get the point.

I took it as a statement of real world operations rather than as a description of the training environment.

 

[WDD]

Wow. Because where I fly I don’t fly T or V routes you question my CFII and DPE, question my IR skills? Yikes.

Yes, I passed the written, I passed the oral, I know what T and V routes are, how to read the charts, how to load them into the GTN, how to fly them.

The idea that because one flies direct routes indicates a deficiency is absurd.

 

[iamtheari]

Wow. Because where I fly I don’t fly T or V routes you question my CFII and DPE, question my IR skills? Yikes.

Yes, I passed the written, I passed the oral, I know what T and V routes are, how to read the charts, how to load them into the GTN, how to fly them.

The idea that because one flies direct routes indicates a deficiency is absurd.

No kidding. "You don't use trigonometry in your daily life. Therefore you, your junior high math teacher, and the school board in your home town should all be stripped of your rank and teased relentlessly about your hair styles."

 

[midlifeflyer]

No kidding. "You don't use trigonometry in your daily life. Therefore you, your junior high math teacher, and the school board in your home town should all be stripped of your rank and teased relentlessly about your hair styles."

True about the hair styles.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

On the occasion that I need an airway (to stay below icy clouds, or to easily navigate around airspace) I do appreciate some of the T routes. In particular, T265 is by far my most used one because it gets you closer to Chicago while circumnavigating than any other option.

It does seem like some of them are almost randomly drawn, compared to the Victor airways. For example, it used to be possible to follow V2 all the way from Seattle to New York, and in the VOR days that was probably the best route to stay with the whole time. Now, the T routes seem to terminate in somewhat random places, and then take sharp turns and go off in an entirely different direction for hundreds of miles.

The other thing that bugs me about them is moving from T to V and vice versa. Yeah, I get it, they're trying to get rid of the VORs, but there's no reason they can't keep the identifier as a GPS waypoint for use with a T route. There seem to be some T routes that have non-VOR waypoints that might only be feet from the VOR, but you can't transition from one to the other there because they're not the same.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It does seem like some of them are almost randomly drawn, compared to the Victor airways. For example, it used to be possible to follow V2 all the way from Seattle to New York, and in the VOR days that was probably the best route to stay with the whole time. Now, the T routes seem to terminate in somewhat random places, and then take sharp turns and go off in an entirely different direction for hundreds of miles.

if I understand the T-Route concept, they are intended to circumnavigate busy terminal areas (“T” = “Terminal?”) in congested airspace, not extended enroute operations. They are also designed for a satellite-based RNAV world where random routes, even long direct ones, are possible. And once the limited job of a T is done, it just ends. It doesn’t need to connect to anything.

The Victors (and the L/MF routes before them), in contrast, were designed for a world in which ground-based navaids were necessary for both navigation and safety and had to be based on where those navaids were located and limited service volumes.

I think you can really see this at work when you look at PIT-CLE-DTW. Three Class Bs within less than 200 nm, but the airspace outside if the Bravos not very congested. Decommissioning Victors, removal of VORs except as needed for MON, and not even bothering with creating T-Routes. Compare that with, say, the NE corridor, SOCAL or Florida, where overall traffic seems to be a reason to retain some type of airway structure.

I agree about the annoyance of existing VORs that appear to be part of a T-Route but aren’t. It takes a little getting used to.

 

[Larry in TN]

Because where I fly I don’t fly T or V routes you question my CFII and DPE, question my IR skills?

I look at the point of flying as being able to go to other places that may be different.

A lot of CFIIs, in the low lands, don't have any experience with mountainous terrain or non-radar operations. They train their students in a radar environment and may not do a very good job of teaching the procedures for non-radar or mountainous areas.

Many years ago, there was a thread on the Red Board by a Bonanza owner who departed IFR to the North from KGCN (Grand Canyon) airport. His clearance was "Cleared as filed" and GCN Tower told him "Cleared for Takeoff". He called ABQ Center and they said, "Roger". He flew straight through the SFAR 50-2 Flight Free Zones waiting for someone to give him a turn. That was a fun thread.

 

[M20K]

Many years ago, there was a thread on the Red Board by a Bonanza owner who departed IFR to the North from KGCN (Grand Canyon) airport.

Do you happen to remember what the clearance was? And I guess if there was a big discussion about it, he must have been sited, but that would be a tough one on the Administrators part if the clearance sent him that way.

 

[Larry in TN]

Do you happen to remember what the clearance was? And I guess if there was a big discussion about it, he must have been sited, but that would be a tough one on the Administrators part if the clearance sent him that way.

As best as I remember, he was "cleared as filed" and had filed an airway starting at the GCN VOR which is on the field.

There was an ODP but it was "N/A" for departures from runway 3, which is the runway from which he departed.

He just stayed on runway heading until finally climbing up into radar coverage and surprising ABQ Center.

GCN was, and may still be, a VFR tower. They didn't issue or modify IFR clearances, just relayed them from ABQ Center. ABQ was expecting him to depart the traffic pattern at GCN, in whatever manner GCN tower may have needed him to do, and then to join his cleared airway. ABQ was protecting all of the airspace around GCN, and along that airway, for his departure so the specific means of exiting the pattern and joining the airway didn't matter.

In 1990, I flew Grand Canyon tours out of LAS and most of those flights landed at GCN. We were VFR-only in C-207s and C-402. One day the field went under 1000'/3sm with a ton of VFR tour operators inbound and outbound. GCN tower told the VFR inbounds to hold (at established holding landmarks) outside of the the ATA (now Class D). There was a Scenic Airlines twin-otter in that hold with one pilot talking to the tower asking for a SVFR clearance and the other pilot talking to ABQ Center asking for an IFR and approach. GCN tower told them that they had an IFR inbound and couldn't get them a SVFR while ABQ was telling the other pilot that there was a SVFR and they couldn't get an IFR clearance. It was pretty funny.

 

[M20K]

He just stayed on runway heading until finally climbing up into radar coverage and surprising ABQ Center.

It would be funny if V293 was in his Clearance. That's only a slight jog off of Rwy 03.

It's been probably 2 years since I flew into GCN and although I arrived and departed IFR, it was CAVU both days. On the Arrival I asked Approach if I could do a tour, so they just vectored me up Bedrock Canyon to the north side and then back to the airport by the Tower of Ra.

 

[Larry in TN]

It would be funny if V293 was in his Clearance. That's only a slight jog off of Rwy 03.

I believe he was heading southwest on one of the two airways in the SW quadrant. It wasn't north. V293 has an MEA of 14,500', below which is SFAR 50-2 airspace, so he would have had to gain significant altitude prior to proceeding northeast of GCN VOR.

It's been probably 2 years since I flew into GCN and although I arrived and departed IFR, it was CAVU both days. On the Arrival I asked Approach if I could do a tour, so they just vectored me up Bedrock Canyon to the north side and then back to the airport by the Tower of Ra.

It was CAVU when he departed, too.

GCN has no TRACON, just Center, so not approach control. The current chart says it's LA Center. I must be misremembering it at ABQ. It was 35 years ago when I last flew there.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

if I understand the T-Route concept, they are intended to circumnavigate busy terminal areas (“T” = “Terminal?”) in congested airspace, not extended enroute operations. They are also designed for a satellite-based RNAV world where random routes, even long direct ones, are possible. And once the limited job of a T is done, it just ends. It doesn’t need to connect to anything.

And that all makes sense... Until you see routes like T276 starting at Glasgow, MT GGW and heading south, and then west, ducking around a bunch of nothing all the way to the west coast. Huh? There's several spots on that one route that make me wonder why it exists. And there's plenty of other ones, especially in the Plains states, that just don't seem to make any sense at all, with very little airspace to worry about and traffic levels in the "Direct wherever whenever" level.

 

[midlifeflyer]

And that all makes sense... Until you see routes like T276 starting at Glasgow, MT GGW and heading south, and then west, ducking around a bunch of nothing all the way to the west coast. Huh? There's several spots on that one route that make me wonder why it exists.

For the Montana to California one, a guess: a lower path through mountainous terrain which guarantees ATC communication?

Not quite the same as circumnavigating busy areas, but still a reason to have defined routes,

 

[iamtheari]

For the Montana to California one, a guess: a lower path through mountainous terrain which guarantees ATC communication?

Not quite the same as circumnavigating busy areas, but still a reason to have defined routes,

The first part of T276 from GGW to EVBUJ is a head-scratcher. There aren't any mountains to go around, although it does avoid the Hays MOA. But then, instead of touching the LWT VOR, it goes directly over the VOR to the GPS fix EVBUJ, which is so close to LWT that it is within the compass rose on the IFR low chart and seems to be designed solely to frustrate changes from T276 to any of the airways that are defined by LWT: V120, V113, and V611.

A little farther east, T331 between FONIA and the BIL VOR is even more confusing. KXWA might think they're New York based on how much it costs to dine out, but the airport is too slow for me to think of an amusing analogy this morning.

Generally, I'm a fan of T routes and I hope more are developed. My trips to Arizona would benefit from having a few more, such as filling the big gap over Glen Canyon where the surrounding victor airway MEAs are 14000+ with a T route from CNY to TBC, where careful planning could maybe get the MEA down to 10000.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The first part of T276 from GGW to EVBUJ is a head-scratcher. There aren't any mountains to go around, although it does avoid the Hays MOA. But then, instead of touching the LWT VOR, it goes directly over the VOR to the GPS fix EVBUJ, which is so close to LWT that it is within the compass rose on the IFR low chart and seems to be designed solely to frustrate changes from T276 to any of the airways that are defined by LWT: V120, V113, and V611.

A little farther east, T331 between FONIA and the BIL VOR is even more confusing. KXWA might think they're New York based on how much it costs to dine out, but the airport is too slow for me to think of an amusing analogy this morning.

Generally, I'm a fan of T routes and I hope more are developed. My trips to Arizona would benefit from having a few more, such as filling the big gap over Glen Canyon where the surrounding victor airway MEAs are 14000+ with a T route from CNY to TBC, where careful planning could maybe get the MEA down to 10000.

Once I got comfortable with the concept that they were not co-located, the VOR vs T-Route waypoint stopped being a big deal to me. I just accepted that we are going to see this. At least there are differences in symbology and colorization.

Sometimes we can figure out the "why" but it doesn't bother me if I can't. I just figure it has something to do with the removal of airways, even where the included VORs and airports might be part of the MON network.

 

[M20K]

The first part of T276 from GGW to EVBUJ is a head-scratcher. There aren't any mountains to go around, although it does avoid the Hays MOA.

I think avoiding the MOA is exactly the point. Controller does not have to take the time to give Vectors if it is active. Either the computer just always adds the T Route if the Hays MOA is frequently active, then the Controller can just take it out and tell you to fly Direct EVBUJ if it's not active (or some other Wpt). And I don't have any old charts to look at, but were there ever any Victor Airways through there? Maybe they did not do an overlay of an old route with the new T route because the VOR was never part of a route in that area.

Also... If you look at the continuation of T-276 from EVBUJ, it is a straight line from there to GTF right down the middle between the peaks on either side. Almost as if someone drew a line from GTF down that direction and said "this would be a great place for a RNAV Waypoint!"

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think avoiding the MOA is exactly the point. Controller does not have to take the time to give Vectors if it is active

That makes sense. There’s so much of procedure design that involves nothing more esoteric than reducing workload, and RNAV simply gives more options to do so.

For IAPs, we have T-configurations, TAAs, and IAFs that allow own nav from pretty far out. Controllers are increasing using “direct to [IF], cleared straight in” instead of vectors to final. The entire SID/STAR system is nothing more than a set of published ATC instructions, reducing workload for both pilot and controller.