Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
That figure gives the criteria for no ODP to be published, but since there is an ODP for this airport, the figure doesn't apply, does it?
/U filing for an intersection as first waypoint
- Thread starter airheadpenguin
- Start date
That figure gives the criteria for no ODP to be published, but since there is an ODP for this airport, the figure doesn't apply, does it?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I don't think he said it was a CC opinion. (Or if he did, I missed it.)
Personally, I think the equipment that is "suitable" for intercepting an airway is a VOR receiver.
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
If you're filed direct to ACK, you can still navigate to it even if not necessarily along the airway.
Actually the field is 1 degree west of the airway centerline. That's about a half mile at 26 nm from ACK. How far away could the airway be before it's not legal anymore? Is it okay as long as it's within 4 miles?
Besides, people are talking about clearances to fly to a fix on a radial (not an airway) that's about 7* from the radial that the field is on. Is it legal to accept that clearance, but illegal as a filed route?
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes that is the difference but I don't see it any different than finding yourself 1 degree off course when flying an airway from VOR to VOR. You simply correct the error and the same technique should work just fine as you climb off the runway and join the airway. What you can't do with only VOR is fly directly to the GAILS fix from wherever you are when you get high enough to receive either or both VORs that define that intersection but that's not required to fly the proposed route.
Good question and I don't claim to have the answer. I can say that I'm certain I could join an airway reliably from several miles away without calculating my position using multiple VORs or DME. And IIRC there are many missed approach procedures that require exactly that. The procedure does provide a heading but picking any heading that's offset from the intended radial by 30-60 degrees would work as long as that didn't make it ambiguous whether or not you'd intercept the radial before passing the bend in the airway (at GAILS in the posted route).
There are many things you can get in a clearance that you can't file, particularly anything with just a heading. AFaIK there's simply no way to file the equivalent of "Fly heading 340 and intercept the 270 radial from the ACK VOR" but I believe that's a perfectly acceptable clearance.
It does seem that a departure from KHYA headed north ought to get a clearance with a heading and instructions to intercept the airway but I don't see any way to file the same thing, perhaps there should be.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Judging by the VFR chart, you will cross the airway if you take off from Runway 6 or 24. I would argue that "direct GAIL" means direct from the point where you turn on course, not direct from the airport reference point, so a direct route could end up being on either side of the airway. Consequently, the argument that a VOR receiver is not suitable for the filed route seems unnecessarily nit-picky to me.
As for whether it's legal or not, it seems to me that the real issue is that it's not possible to precisely describe the intended route of flight in the flight plan. If they start throwing the book at people over stuff like that, then I'll start worrying about it. The enforcement case Cap'n Ron cited involved such extreme behavior that I think it's a real stretch to apply it to this situation.
That having been said, my practice is to just file to a VOR within service limits, because I know that 99 times out of a hundred, ATC is going to give me something other than what I file anyway.
azure
Final Approach
Or even when flying along any radial from a VOR. So does it matter that the field is essentially on an airway? Can I file, say 76G ECK R-177 MARGN V450 FNT? (Note: 76G is right on ECK R-177.)
Okay, I guess the operative word there is "directly". You can always use two VORs to find your way to one or the other defining radials of an intersection, but it's a lot harder (and not legal) to hold a direct course from the present position to the intersection without some form of RNAV.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking of, a scenario where you would need to use a cross radial from LFV to help pick an intercept heading that gets you to the airway or radial from ACK before you pass the intersection. Depending on the wind, you might need to do that to fly the R-341 FREDO clearance. But thinking some more, the same is true of the missed on the ILS 4 @ KPHN where you have to climb to 4000 before turning to intercept FNT R-097 and track it to MARGN. With a strong SE wind and/or a poor climb gradient, you can easily end up paralleling (or even outright tracking) the ECK R-177 south to V450.
Okay, I think I understand. So we're back to, how close does the field need to be to the radial/airway to legally file KHYA ACK R-xxx whatever? And does it have to underly the radial? What would happen if I filed KHYA ACK R-341 FREDO? Either the initial clearance or, more likely, departure would give me the initial heading, but would the system accept the filed route?
Wait, didn't Steven say that KHYA V141 GAILS was perfectly okay?
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
Has anyone ever actually had the book thrown at them for simply FILING something, even if they couldn't legally fly it? I thought the only time enforcement action came up is if someone accepted a clearance they weren't equipped to fly, and an incident or pilot deviation came about from that.
PaulMillner
Line Up and Wait
Goodness, GAILS is defined by radials from FOUR VORs. In the early '80's, the test standards required us to navigate to an intersection defined by radials using only ONE VOR receiver, which made for busy hands... But it's not that tough a process. You pick a heading, and then monitor your respective progress across both sets of radials. You should be getting proportionately closer with respect to both VORs. If not, modify heading appropriately. /U is ALL you need to find a two-radial-defined intersection. SOP.
Paul
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
A real, far reaching stretch.
![\__[Ô]__/](/community/data/avatars/m/12/12009.jpg?1457665956){kind=avatar}
\__[Ô]__/
Pre-takeoff checklist
Am I the only one a little troubled by the confusion and disagreement over this? This isn't some wacky edge case that never comes up; There have to be hundreds of airports with similar issues. With GPS, it's getting less common, but there are still many /U aircraft out there and there were many more in the past. How is it that there isn't a concrete answer to this that everyone agrees on?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,224
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
You're talking about identifying an intersection while you were already established on a route. In this case we're not established on a route yet. I too have identified intersections many times using only one VOR reciever. It's not very hard.
roncachamp
Final Approach
When are we established on this route?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,224
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Well, since it's an airway, being in the air would be a good start. While we're within the lateral limits, the NAVAID isn't on the field so it would be aircraft dependent as to when a signal is reached on climb out.
I'm all about the logic in using this airway direct GAILS. I'd like some sort of reference that says we can file direct a waypoint with /U, if we're within the lateral limits of an airway that we're not receiving? If this NAVAID was at the field it would be a no brainer but it's not. This situation isn't like filing direct a NAVAID for the first point either. This is a waypoint, and any reference (including the Block 8 AIM description) will say filing to a waypoint in space requires RNAV. I mean where do we draw the line on what a /U can do? Like I said, if we can legally file this, than can we file direct FREDO? Still no answer on that one yet.
My opinion is in agreement with John and Ron on this one.
dtuuri
Final Approach
All airports with SIAPs are assessed for diverse departures. Any restrictions are also published. Only two runways at HYA have restrictions.
I think folks are too accustomed to radar and GPS precision to grasp this departure. Also, I think they're confusing what pilots are supposed to do legally and prudently during flight planning with what it takes to enter data and retrieve it from ATC's computer.
The airport is on an airway. The flight planned route description starts there, not where you maneuver to after takeoff. ATC protects your airspace with a hammer, not a micrometer.
Legally, you need a VOR receiver. Prudently, as per the FAA training handbooks, you plan your flight for comm failure and compliance with FAR 91.177--easily done when you follow airways with published MEAs, not so easy off-airways.
ATC's computer doesn't care about any of that "prudence stuff", or airway width, or FARs. It wants to know what reporting points you want to fly over. Does that mean your filed flight plan demonstrates an intention to violate FARs? I think not.
dtuuri
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
You may work for the FAA, but you do not speak for the FAA on this matter. The offices I mentioned do, and if you ask them (and I have), you will get the answer I gave you.
Of course, the rest of you out there may believe that if the local FSDO starts an enforcement action against you for violating 91.205, saying "A guy who's a controller in Green Bay said on the internet that it was legal" will get you off the hook. You may also believe in the tooth fairy. Good luck with that.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
KHYA is not part of the airway. Flying direct to a navaid is fine, but that's a different clearance than joining an airway in midstream. And there is nothing giving parameters to join an airway from an airport near the airway.
As I said earlier, you certainly "can" do this, and the odds are strongly that nobody will care, but if something goes wrong, you have no legal leg on which to stand.
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
'Zackly. There are no restrictions on ACK, so the bottom edge of the service volume should be reached at about 380' AGL. There's simply no issue here.
You want a reference that says a /U aircraft can file from one point on a VOR radial direct to another point on that same VOR radial. I don't think you'll find one. Where are any of the "rules" for filing? I don't see how this situation is significantly different from filing direct to a NAVAID for the first point. If the OP was instead headed in the other direction and filed ACK as the first point, he'd be in exactly the same situation. In each case he'd reach the SSV at about 380 AGL and find himself on the ACK R-349. The only difference is TO or FROM.
I thought they disagreed.
roncachamp
Final Approach
The probability that you misunderstood what they said is high.
You believe FSDO may start an enforcement action for violating 91.205 if it's discovered a pilot used nothing more than a VOR receiver to track a VOR radial. It's a wonder you still have any credibility with anyone in these forums.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,224
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Here's the thing in all this. We've identified a route of flight to a radio fix which requires a direct flight (HYA GAILS). When ATC says "radar contact, when able proceed direct GAILS" we can't do this without RNAV. With our / U all we can do is turn to intercept the R-349 and then go direct.
Why not simply file HYA V141 GAILS? "radar contact, turn left heading____, intercept V141, resume own navigation."
Yes, I know they disagree, but both have valid points. I really don't care either way. I file /G everywhere I go so I don't have to deal with this.
roncachamp
Final Approach
A direct flight that happens to be on the ACK R-349. From the P/CG:
When ATC says, "radar contact, when able proceed direct GAILS", we are able to proceed direct GAILS immediately as we are already on the ACK R-349.
That'll probably work just fine as it's likely HYA has been adapted as a point on V141.
A heading to intercept is unnecessary as the aircraft is already on V141.
Levy doesn't.
Last edited:
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Is that the answer you got from a guy who no longer works for the FAA?
You also believe in the tooth fairy if you think saying "A guy on the Internet said that a Flight Standards employee said it's illegal" would be enough to sustain an enforcement action.
In the OP's scenario, I think there's an issue with the meaning of the 91.205(d) phrase "route to be flown." That's not synonymous with "route filed." If it were, then we would not be allowed to plan on using published ODPs, because there is no way to file them if they are not charted, and we would not be allowed to plan on using published approach procedures, because there's no way to file those either. Pilots operating under Part 91 are even allowed to make up their own departure procedures, and there is certainly no way of filing those.
If the FAA ever starts bringing enforcement actions in cases where it's not possible to accurately file the route to be flown, then we will have much bigger problems than the OP describes.
John Collins
En-Route
Let me try and sort thru a few issues. Intercepting a radial is such a basic IFR maneuver that all IFR pilots are required to use. It is so basic, that it is part of the currency requirements to act as PIC on an IFR flightplan.
From 61.57 (c)(1):
Use of a DP or ODP is a way, but not the only way of a part 91 aircraft to depart an airport runway and enter the IFR enroute structure. A DP is never part of an IFR clearance although an ODP may be. One has no way of filing a DP in a flightplan route, yet they are used all of the time.
There is no prohibition on using DR legs to intercept and join a VOR radial and all that is required is a VOR receiver to be properly equipped to accomplish this. The climb from the airport to the minimum altitude in the enroute structure is potentially without positive course guidance and the pilot is responsible for terrain clearance during the climb unless they are on radar vectors. Once reaching the centerline of an airway and at the MEA, the pilot is assured of terrain clearance, VOR reception, and communication unless otherwise noted by a MRA.
The primary issue is that one can't file a route in the system that uses an airway unless it starts at a fix or VOR, so a route that requires an airway to be intercepted or a radial to be intercepted is not able to be filed. However, clearances that specify intercepting a radial can be issued by ATC and /U aircraft can fly them without any difficulty.
The closest route to the intended route that can be filed is to the first fix on the airway in the direction one intends to fly on the airway. Because, direct to this fix is a random route, it technically requires RNAV capability. This makes filing the route in the system conflict with the precise route the /U aircraft intends to fly. However, this doesn't mean that the pilot is automatically in violation of the 91.205 regulation which requires the aircraft to be equipped with "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown." This is because there is one step after the flightplan is filed, that is the reception and acceptance of the clearance. At the time the clearance is issued, the pilot can request to be cleared to intercept the airway and proceed to the fix as they are /U.
As a similar example, see the DP for South County Airport of Santa Clara and read the DP. There is no way for a /U aircraft to file a flightplan and technically comply with the DP routing to the south on V485 as the first waypoint along the route GILRO would have to be used and in a similar way, the route as filed would imply an RNAV capability. However, I can assure you it is done all the time without any difficulty whatsoever.
From 61.57 (c)(1):
Use of a DP or ODP is a way, but not the only way of a part 91 aircraft to depart an airport runway and enter the IFR enroute structure. A DP is never part of an IFR clearance although an ODP may be. One has no way of filing a DP in a flightplan route, yet they are used all of the time.
There is no prohibition on using DR legs to intercept and join a VOR radial and all that is required is a VOR receiver to be properly equipped to accomplish this. The climb from the airport to the minimum altitude in the enroute structure is potentially without positive course guidance and the pilot is responsible for terrain clearance during the climb unless they are on radar vectors. Once reaching the centerline of an airway and at the MEA, the pilot is assured of terrain clearance, VOR reception, and communication unless otherwise noted by a MRA.
The primary issue is that one can't file a route in the system that uses an airway unless it starts at a fix or VOR, so a route that requires an airway to be intercepted or a radial to be intercepted is not able to be filed. However, clearances that specify intercepting a radial can be issued by ATC and /U aircraft can fly them without any difficulty.
The closest route to the intended route that can be filed is to the first fix on the airway in the direction one intends to fly on the airway. Because, direct to this fix is a random route, it technically requires RNAV capability. This makes filing the route in the system conflict with the precise route the /U aircraft intends to fly. However, this doesn't mean that the pilot is automatically in violation of the 91.205 regulation which requires the aircraft to be equipped with "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown." This is because there is one step after the flightplan is filed, that is the reception and acceptance of the clearance. At the time the clearance is issued, the pilot can request to be cleared to intercept the airway and proceed to the fix as they are /U.
As a similar example, see the DP for South County Airport of Santa Clara and read the DP. There is no way for a /U aircraft to file a flightplan and technically comply with the DP routing to the south on V485 as the first waypoint along the route GILRO would have to be used and in a similar way, the route as filed would imply an RNAV capability. However, I can assure you it is done all the time without any difficulty whatsoever.
Last edited:
John Collins
En-Route
Dead Reckoning leg, typically a fly heading a heading. Dead Reckoning is any leg flown that doesn't have positive course guidance, for example the PT maneuver, the legs other than the inbound leg on a hold, the turn on a tear-drop type procedure turn, ...
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I just tried this on DUAT.com, and it wouldn't accept it. I don't know whether that means that the FAA computer wouldn't, thouigh.
John Collins
En-Route
One thought is to define a waypoint that is near the airport and on the airway. This can be done using RNAV Rho-theta notation. From this point, the next point direct on the airway. It describes the intended route reasonably well. One could still make sure their clearance was to intercept the 349 radial and then direct to GAILS. ACK349028 is on V141 pretty close to the intersection with V167. This is much like the South County GILRO waypoint.
Example:
KHYA ACK349028 GAILS ...
Example:
KHYA ACK349028 GAILS ...
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
True about the fuel planning. As for the NORDO case, if you keep your turn radius under 4 nm, you will remain within the width of the airway, which guarantees obstacle clearance assuming you are at or above the MEA.
For a /U aircraft, does anyone know if it's possible to file the intersection of two radials if it's not a charted intersection? If so, then the A/FD shows HYA being on the MVY 057 degree radial, so as the first fix, one could file the intersection of MVY 057 and ACK 349.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,224
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I'm not sure the whole not being able to file direct an airway off the airport is universal. Example from the AIM:
MDW V262 BDF V10 BRL STJ SLN GCK
I asked my brother who works ABI TWR this question. He said what John said about the computer not accepting an airport direct an airway. He used to work AFSS also and said their CPU wouldn't accept an airway after departure either. It had to be a NAVAID or FIX then the airway. I asked him to check his TWR system (FDIO) and it actually took direct to airways from ABI. He was quite surprised as well. It even took non-towered airports direct airways that were 20 miles away. So I think it's facility dependent. I know when I did ATC our FDIO wouldn't take direct an airway but that was 14 yrs ago. Possibly they've been updated???
I know in the Army we were required to file with the first point being a NAVAID or FIX because of a flight planning thing written in the General Planning manual. Same thing that was taught at the Instrument Examiners course when I attended. We had to file to some NAVAID way out of the way and hope to get a vector after departure to intercept the airway. We were always taught to file for what the aircraft is capable of but once airborne you can work anything out. Now I'm /G so I don't care anymore.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Possibly the ones that used to take it are out-dated. Way more than 14 years ago I asked the question of Flight Service and was told airports within the airway were considered reachable points on the airway by the computer. Can't remember if there were qualifications to that statement, like "in Cleveland Center" or "within X miles of a NAVAID on the airway". Maybe the feature was dropped???
dtuuri
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
JimNtexas
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,259
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim - In Texas!
JimNtexas
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,259
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim - In Texas!
It's interesting to note that when Ron and I were student navigators we were expected to do exactly that, in IMC, in our heads. The Air Force called that a 'point to point'.
azure
Final Approach
John, thanks for the clarification on this. I was obviously confused about what can be filed vs what is a legal clearance for a /U aircraft. Since I'm /G I was never taught and I've never really thought much about what you can and can't do when /U, other than that the FAA doesn't allow point to point navigation. It seems that /U isn't really as limiting as one might think, but it's getting harder and that will only get worse and worse as more and more VORs are shut off.
I tried to file several routes out of KHYA last night as a /U aircraft. KHYA GAILS works, KHYA V141 GAILS does not. A similar situation is departing northwest from KIKW, where you're barely off of V133. But the only way to file that the system will accept is to a fix, e.g. WHIPP. Since there's no other way a /U aircraft could file a route out of IKW (there's no DP and you can't receive the MBS VOR on the ground), I have to assume that's legal.
Last edited:
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, VOR reception on the ground is not required.
John Collins
En-Route
In the case of KHYA direct GAILS, the route is flyable by a /U aircraft as direct to GAILS from the airport as it is indistinguishable from V141 to GAILS. At the airport center, is within .3 NM of the airway center. The airway is 8 NM wide, +/- 4 NM. Established on the airway is half scale CDI deflection or less. At a distance of 15 NM from the VOR, half scale is 5 degrees, or approximately 1.25 NM at that point, so direct to GAILS from the airport is always well inside the airway as is being established on the airway and conversely is well within the direct route to GAILS and established on the direct route.
It is a distinction without a difference.
It is a distinction without a difference.
azure
Final Approach
Well, maybe I don't understand then. Is that the ONLY reason it's legal for a /U aircraft to file direct to GAILS? If the field were, say, 5 miles from the airway, would it be an illegal flight plan then, even though for sure the departure clearance would include a heading to intercept the airway?
If that is true then there are a lot of places, including my home field, where you're several miles from the nearest airway, but could easily track to V133 upon reaching the MEA. If I wanted to file /U to TVC, could I file to POLAR and then fly what I'm given, assuming it included either radar vectors to POLAR or an initial heading to intercept V133? The alternative would be to file direct SVM V133 TVC, somewhat out of the way and into busier airspace.
Last edited:
John Collins
En-Route
No, as long as the aircraft is cleared on a route they are capable of flying, then there shouldn't be a violation of 91.205. In cases where the filing system doesn't provide an option that the aircraft is capable of flying, you have to file something and negotiate an appropriate clearance you can accept.
Here is an example of a DP at Andrews NC.
The DR heading leg 251 degrees is about 5 NM long before intercepting the R-356 inbound to HRS. Even though it is not direct, I would file this as:
"KRHP HRS ... " and follow the DP even though I would be out of radar coverage, ATC communication and not able to receive HRS for a portion of the climb. HRS is the first waypoint in the route structure and is part of my filed route and getting to it doesn't require a specific routing to be filed. I will be using the DP to accomplish getting into the enroute structure. Even though this is a safe way to get into the enroute structure, I am not obligated to fly the DP and if I am familiar with the area, I can chose my own way of getting to the enroute portion.
Here is an example of a DP at Andrews NC.
The DR heading leg 251 degrees is about 5 NM long before intercepting the R-356 inbound to HRS. Even though it is not direct, I would file this as:
"KRHP HRS ... " and follow the DP even though I would be out of radar coverage, ATC communication and not able to receive HRS for a portion of the climb. HRS is the first waypoint in the route structure and is part of my filed route and getting to it doesn't require a specific routing to be filed. I will be using the DP to accomplish getting into the enroute structure. Even though this is a safe way to get into the enroute structure, I am not obligated to fly the DP and if I am familiar with the area, I can chose my own way of getting to the enroute portion.
