/U filing for an intersection as first waypoint
- Thread starter airheadpenguin
- Start date
roncachamp
Final Approach
KHYA GAILS V141 BOS MHT KASH
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
It would be legal for the pilot of a /U aircraft to accept a clearance direct to GAILS from on the ground at KHYA.
roncachamp
Final Approach
What law do you feel makes it illegal to file and/or be cleared from the ground at KHYA direct to GAILS in a /U aircraft?
alfadog
Final Approach
Huh? There is no ACK R-xxx that will take you from HYA to FREDO.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,229
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
But the 349 goes to GAILS not FREDO. Anyway, glad it worked out and you didn't have to head south. What route did you put on your FP?
roncachamp
Final Approach
The OP can file direct GAILS in this case because there is no rule that disallows it.
roncachamp
Final Approach
FREDO? What was the full clearance?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,229
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
So could he legally file to PEAKE to the SW then?
roncachamp
Final Approach
Yup. The ZBW computer may even be adapted to accept KHYA as being on V141. We had a similar situation at ZAU, V63-191 goes right over KFLD. The computer was adapted to accept FLD as a fix on the airway.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Of course.
airheadpenguin
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,229
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
OK, from what I understand, you're saying a /U can file direct a fix as long as the airway goes over the airport. How close does the airway have to be to the airport? 4 miles?
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
That sorta works but I'm not sure how you'd make a 180° turn at ACK if you couldn't get hold of ATC and you'd have to plan for the extra fuel required if you went NORDO.
Personally, I'd probably file what the OP suggested (GAILS BOS) assuming ATC actually lets FLIBs overfly BOS. Alternatively and slightly more legally would be to file BOGEY GAILS BOS if you have an ADF (without that you're still not legal).
And if the wx was VMC around HYA, you could file GAILS as your departure point and navigate there under VFR.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
It makes logical sense that one can legally fly an initial leg from KHYA to GAILS (via V171) since you'd be on that airway before leaving the ground but when does the FAA make sense?
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
What makes that "illegal"? Even if GAILS was actually a VOR the SSV wouldn't cover an airplane on the ground at KHYA but I think it would be perfectly legal to fly a departure from HYA that took you directly to the "GAILS VOR". If that's not the case how could you depart from any airport that didn't have a published DP?
roncachamp
Final Approach
Airway width is nominally four miles either side of centerline, you're either on it or you ain't.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Bingo. If you can legally file and be cleared direct to ACK you can legally file and be cleared direct to a point on the ACK radial that falls across KHYA.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
No, it would not. Violates 91.205(d)(2), whether you believe it or not. Ask the FAA Chief Counsel , AFS-400600/800, or any Ops Inspector if you don't believe me.
And your persistence in espousing this falsehood will not change the fact that is illegal.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
What makes it illegal is that the aircraft does not have a suitable RNAV system on this undefined routing. There is no course guidance available to provide lateral guidance on that routing.
Really. Ask the FAA if you don't believe me.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
That's what he's saying, and he's said it before, but the FAA does not share his opinion.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,229
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
But the airway to PEAKE isn't over HYA and neither was the ACK 341 clearance he got to FREDO. Can you file direct to any fix with /U as long as the fix is within the service volume of the NAVAID?
azure
Final Approach
I guess technically the problem is that without course guidance from the ground, you have no way of ensuring that you're still on the filed radial when you get high enough to receive the VOR. If GAILS was a VOR, and you then went lost comms, you could still navigate direct to it /U.
How do you navigate to GAILS /U if you find yourself on the ACK R-360 when you pick up the VOR? Or even the ACK R-354 or 353? How close do you have to be to it to be sure of intercepting the 349 before you pass GAILS with a given intercept angle?
(Yes, this can be calculated, it's geometry. But the FAA seems opposed to letting us do that kind of math tactically, in the air.)
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
Why do you believe the FAA Chief Counsel , AFS-400600/800, or any Ops Inspector, would share your misconceptions?
roncachamp
Final Approach
roncachamp
Final Approach
The FAA does not have opinions, people do.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Actually, the airway to PEAKE is over HYA as airway width is four miles either side of centerline and HYA is two miles from the centerline of that airway. The ACK R-341 does not form an airway, but I suspect his clearance included a heading to join that radial.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,229
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Would filing direct to FREDO be fine as well?
roncachamp
Final Approach
Before you had GPS how often did you have course guidance from the ground?
To reach the lower edge of the ACK service volume at KHYA requires a climb of about 380 feet. The radial at that point is almost half a mile wide. I don't see a problem.
Is that what you would do? You wouldn't leave the OBS 349 and intercept the radial if somehow you had managed to stray from it?
If you find yourself on the ACK R-360 when you pick up the VOR you used five miles to climb 380 feet. What're ya haulin'?
Last edited:
John Collins
En-Route
In most instances (the vast majority in fact) one does not have positive course guidance from the ground when departing into the IFR system and using conventional Navaids such as VOR or DME. The same would be true if one filed direct to a VOR that was not located on the field.
If there was a requirement to have positive course guidance from the ground, then even a DP or SID that started with a DR leg (example: fly runway heading to 700 feet then turn right to 319 to intercept the ACK 349 radial) would not be approved for use by /U aircraft. Clearly, these types of routes are issued all the time in clearances.
In the case in question, the MEA on V141 is only 1700 MSL. Even a C172 will reach that altitude in around three minutes from lift off. Following the DP which requires a climb to 700 before proceeding on course, one would be able to correct to the center of the airway with positive guidance within two minutes, so just DR on a parallel course until 1700 MSL and then correct under positive guidance of the 349 radial.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
After reading this thread I have to agree with roncachamp and John Collins.
alfadog
Final Approach
That's what I was thinking. I think mention of the ground in this question is a total red herring, unintentional I am sure.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,229
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
So John is there a rule that if your /U you can file to a waypoint as long as you have an airway that passes within 4 miles of your airfield? Also would GAILS be considered a "waypoint" in the way block 8 in the AIM says "(for RNAV)". Finally, would you be legal to file to FREDO as your first waypoint while being /U equipped? Thanks.
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
I never meant to imply that course guidance from the ground was a requirement. All I'm saying is that you have to have a clearance you can legally fly if you lose comms even before you're radar identified. You can't navigate direct to an intersection /U. You'd have to intercept the radial and it seems what Ron is saying is that the FAA doesn't allow filing to an undefined point on a radial. I don't know if that's true, and it seems that in this situation, practically, it shouldn't be a problem absent some very strong winds across the desired course.
I know... but without the specific heading, it's not legally flyable /U. What if you got KHYA ACK R-349 GAILS as a clearance, you're cleared for takeoff without a heading to intercept? Can you legally fly that?
Agreed, as a practical matter you can do it in this case unless you're being blown by some very strong and unforecast low level winds. But where do you draw the line? Should it still be okay if the airway passes 3 miles from the field? 5 miles? 10 miles? 15?
I'm just saying that it sounds like this is one of those things that are no-nos as far as the FAA is concerned, even if they're probably done all the time, like /U aircraft accepting a direct clearance to an airport or to a VOR from outside the SSV in CAVU weather.
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
Didn't the OP actually get KHYA R-341 FREDO as the beginning of his cleared route? How do you (legally) fly that clearance /U if ATC gives you a bad initial intercept heading (say due to strong winds) and then you lose comms before they can give you a better one?
dtuuri
Final Approach
Refer to AIM Figure 5-2-1. You have 25 miles in any direction to reach MEA on an airway. Beyond that... well here's what the AIM says:
Beyond this distance, the pilot is responsible for obstacle clearance if not operating on a published route, if below (having not reached) the MEA or MOCA of a published route, or an ATC assigned altitude. See FIG 5−2−1.
How would you flight plan for FREDO, i.e., for lost comms, when the route to it has no MEA? On the other hand, if given it as a departure fix, ATC will assign a suitable altitude. dtuuri
Last edited:
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Would it be legal to file and fly direct to ACK? If so how is flying the opposite direction on the airway any different?
I can see how it would be different if the runway wasn't right under the airway and/or there wasn't any VOR guidance available to the filed fix but that's not the case here. Are you certain the CC opinion you've referred to includes this situation?
Last edited:
airheadpenguin
Pre-takeoff checklist
Yes, and the departure instructions from tower included a heading to fly. Remember the clearance comes from CD, then off to Ground for taxi instructions and tower before departure. CD doesn't have to be concerned with which runway you're using and had no business assigning departure instructions aside from a SID.
Once I'm in the air I would fly the heading assigned and track to the radial, in the event of lost comms continue as cleared i.e. intercept ACK R-341.
I would actively question if someone experiencing lost comms at this point of the flight and continuing to their destination could pass the 91.13 reckless and careless test.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
A bad vector is a possibility for ALL aircraft, not just /U. In the event of comm failure, if the vector you were given is not getting the job done, then you apply AIM paragraph 6-4-1a:
6−4−1. Two-way Radio Communications Failure
a. It is virtually impossible to provide regulations
and procedures applicable to all possible situations
associated with two-way radio communications
failure. During two-way radio communications
failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in
the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good
judgment in whatever action they elect to take.
Should the situation so dictate they should not be
reluctant to use the emergency action contained in
14 CFR Section 91.3(b).
a. It is virtually impossible to provide regulations
and procedures applicable to all possible situations
associated with two-way radio communications
failure. During two-way radio communications
failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in
the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good
judgment in whatever action they elect to take.
Should the situation so dictate they should not be
reluctant to use the emergency action contained in
14 CFR Section 91.3(b).
(I don't think anyone is going to argue that following the AIM is illegal!)
You can evaluate whether the vector is working or not by noting whether the CDI shows you getting closer to or farther away from the 341 degree radial. If it shows you getting farther away, increase your intercept angle.
If you take off from Runway 6, the CDI might get to full scale before you can get turned to your intercept heading. If that happens, you can use the OBS to center the needle and see whether your heading is taking you left or right, and correct accordingly.