/U filing for an intersection as first waypoint

A

airheadpenguin

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
495
Location
New Hampshire
Display Name
Display name:
airheadpenguin
Here's the situation, I'm filing for KHYA to KASH. The first northbound intersection is GAILS then V141 BOS MHT. Otherwise I'd be flying out to LVM, ACK or MVY just to backtrack north. BOS doesn't have the range at 6k to go direct, by the book.

Its worth noting that one of the radials that forms GAILS comes straight over the field, so its just a matter of intercepting that radial.

So can I file for GAILS as my first waypoint if I'm /U?
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
If they don't like V141 GAILS, I'd file direct BOGEY direct GAILS. But I'd argue first. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Can you file to an NDB that's not on the enroute chart?
 
Palmpilot said:
Can you file to an NDB that's not on the enroute chart?
Click to expand...
It's an IAF and a missed approach fix, so it connects to the enroute structure in both directions with MIAs (similar to MEA). But, this is Boston. They seem to have unique ideas about IFR departure rules there. Moosehead Lake (3B1), I think, comes to mind.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
How about filing direct ACK V141 BOS etc., and then once airborne, asking ATC for vectors to intercept V141 northbound?
Click to expand...
Can't you intercept V141 off the DP? What's a DP for, if not? Just RNAV aircraft only?

dtuuri
 
airheadpenguin said:
There's no SID for KHYA
Click to expand...
Do you know how to find out if there's an ODP? What about for the runways that have no ODP at HYA? Do you know what a "diverse departure" is? The purpose for being, is to protect you from obstructions/terrain until joining the enroute structure, which you must do within 25 NM (46 designated mountainous areas). Check it out in the AIM and TPP Section "L".

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
airheadpenguin said:
I guess I'm a naieve student and would prefer to file for something I'd want to fly incase I get it.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think just joining the airway northbound would be a close enough approximation of "direct GAIL" that no one would complain if you did that, but if you don't want to do it that way, then there are places where it's not possible to file a route that you would want to fly, especially in a /U aircraft, and this would be one of them. Direct ACK V141 BOS etc. is something that you are equipped to fly. If you want efficient, then there is nothing illegal about turning toward ACK, and then asking ATC for a vector to join the airway northwest bound, as long as you are willing to fly what you filed in the unlikely event that turns out to be necessary. Also, I haven't flown in that area, but in general, don't be surprised if the clearance ATC gives you on the ground is completely different from what you filed. I'm totally guessing here, but it would not surprise me to receive a clearance like "radar vectors Boston, direct Manchester direct."

As an example local to me, the only reason I know what to file to get from Palo Alto to Monterey is that I've done it many times and know what to expect. I always file direct San Jose direct Salinas direct, because Palo Alto is outside Salinas's service volume, but the clearance I receive on the ground always includes "fly heading 090, radar vectors Salinas, direct."
 
dtuuri said:
It's an IAF and a missed approach fix, so it connects to the enroute structure in both directions with MEAs...
Click to expand...

The connections with the enroute structure are via feeder routes, not airways. Somewhere I thought I heard that if you file to an NDB that is not on the enroute chart, the ATC computer will reject it.
 
airheadpenguin said:
Here's the situation, I'm filing for KHYA to KASH. The first northbound intersection is GAILS then V141 BOS MHT. Otherwise I'd be flying out to LVM, ACK or MVY just to backtrack north. BOS doesn't have the range at 6k to go direct, by the book.

Its worth noting that one of the radials that forms GAILS comes straight over the field, so its just a matter of intercepting that radial.

So can I file for GAILS as my first waypoint if I'm /U?
Click to expand...

Affirmative.
 
I was /U for years, and did a similar thing. I fly out of KZEF, a small airport in NW NC, quite near V222, V37, and V310). I did, and still do now that I am /G, file BURCH as my first waypoint whenever I am flying in a southerly direction. All l had to do to get to BURCH was fly S/SE until intercepting V222, turn SW until the radial off GSO that defines BURCH centers, and I was at BURCH. I did this (and still do) so that ATC will know where to expect me when I pop up on their scope (radar coverage here starts around 3,500 feet), and it keeps me free of a skydiving operation that is very close SW of my airport (and NW of BURCH).

Ron says it is not legal, and I am not one to argue the FAR's with Ron, but this sure worked for me, and I never had ATC query it.

Wells
 
airheadpenguin said:
There's no SID for KHYA
Click to expand...

But there is a departure procedure:


HYANNIS, MA
BARNSTABLE MUNI-BOARDMAN/POLANDO
FIELD (HYA)
AMDT 3A 08269 (FAA)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 33, 300-1 or std. with a
min. climb of 354’ per NM to 300.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwys 24,33, climb runway
heading to 700 before proceeding on course.
NOTE: Rwy 33, pole 3961’ from DER, 1531’ right of
centerline, 97’ AGL/235’ MSL.
 
File it as radar vectors to V141...
 
Palmpilot said:
The ODP in this case doesn't tell you how to join the enroute structure. It just says "Rwys 24,33, climb runway heading to 700 before proceeding on course." Given the airway configurations in that area, that's a bit sketchy for a /U, don't you think?

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/NE-1/hya_takeoff_minimums.pdf
Click to expand...
Not at all. RNAV isn't a requirement to depart most airports IFR, certainly not this one.

Palmpilot said:
The connections with the enroute structure are via feeder routes, not airways.
Click to expand...
Feeder routes have the same width and obstacle clearance as airways, but I guess it's more proper to refer to the published altitude as MIA (minimum instrument altitude) rather than MEA, as I did. I'll fix it for you.

Palmpilot said:
Somewhere I thought I heard that if you file to an NDB that is not on the enroute chart, the ATC computer will reject it.
Click to expand...
Possibly so, if it's a limitation caused by the digit heads that programmed the fancy ATC computer. I'd file over the phone and let FSS lie to the computer to fool it into thinking you're going direct GAILS. The recording will show you really are /U and intending to proceed via V141.

dtuuri
 
airheadpenguin said:
What would be legal, and reasonably efficient?
Click to expand...
I can't really say what's "reasonably efficient," but filing directly to a point to which your aircraft is equipped to navigate (i.e., you can tell using the installed equipment whether you are on the straight line from where you started to that point, and can tell when you reach it) would be the way to go. So, if you /U aircraft has only VOR, that would be a VOR within the standard service volume range of where you start. If you also have an ADF, an NDB would work, also within the SSV.
 
When the controller says "radar contact, when able proceed direct GAILS" what method of navigation will you be using to proceed direct the fix?
 
Palmpilot said:
Personally, I think just joining the airway northbound would be a close enough approximation of "direct GAIL" that no one would complain if you did that,
Click to expand...
I agree -- as long as you don't screw it up, ATC won't care what you do or how you do it. However, if you do cause a problem for them because you wander off the line they expect you to fly because you lack the appropriate equipment for the route you filed/were cleared, the potential for a bad meeting with the FSDO exists, and the possible penalty could be six months on the ground. See Administrator v. Fausak.
 
I assume that it would make no difference if he did have DME? Still no way he could fly direct to GAILS.
 
alfadog said:
I assume that it would make no difference if he did have DME? Still no way he could fly direct to GAILS.
Click to expand...
You assume correctly. Per 91.205(d), for IFR nav, you need "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown". In order to file "point-to-point," i.e., area navigation:
Area navigation (RNAV) is a method of navigation that permits aircraft operations on any desired flight path.
Click to expand...
...you need what 14 CFR 1.1 calls a "suitable RNAV system":
Suitable RNAV system is an RNAV system that meets the required performance established for a type of operation, e.g. IFR; and is suitable for operation over the route to be flown in terms of any performance criteria (including accuracy) established by the air navigation service provider for certain routes (e.g. oceanic, ATS routes, and IAPs). An RNAV system's suitability is dependent upon the availability of ground and/or satellite navigation aids that are needed to meet any route performance criteria that may be prescribed in route specifications to navigate the aircraft along the route to be flown. Information on suitable RNAV systems is published in FAA guidance material.
Click to expand...
Having DME can give you that, but only if you have it hooked up to a VOR/DME RNAV device like the King KNS80. Likewise, two VOR's can do that, but again, only if hooked up to a course-line computer like the old Collins CLC.
 
roncachamp said:
No difference.



He could fly direct to GAILS via the ACK R-349.
Click to expand...

Does your computer even accept that for routing? That's not a NAVAID or a FIX. All that is, is another way of labeling V-141. I know our computer wouldn't accept that unless it was a radial/DME.
 
Velocity173 said:
Does your computer even accept that for routing? That's not a NAVAID or a FIX. All that is, is another way of labeling V-141. I know our computer wouldn't accept that unless it was a radial/DME.
Click to expand...
The question wasn't whether he could file it, or whether the computer would accept it, just whether he could navigate directly to GAILS once on the radial, and of course, it is indeed physically possible to do so. There's just no legal way to do that starting on the ground without a suitable RNAV system and (if I understand the system correctly), no way to file it so the system will accept it without filing direct GAILS.
 
Ron Levy said:
The question wasn't whether he could file it, or whether the computer would accept it, just whether he could navigate directly to GAILS once on the radial, and of course, it is indeed physically possible to do so. There's just no legal way to do that starting on the ground without a suitable RNAV system and (if I understand the system correctly), no way to file it so the system will accept it without filing direct GAILS.
Click to expand...

Obviously the ACK 349 will take him to GAILS. I was assuming since Steven said he could fly the ACK 349 to GAILS, that would be what he files for. I was curious at how that would look on the flight plan. HYA direct ACK 349 or HYA direct V141?
 
Velocity173 said:
Obviously the ACK 349 will take him to GAILS. I was assuming since Steven said he could fly the ACK 349 to GAILS, that would be what he files for. I was curious at how that would look on the flight plan. HYA direct ACK 349 or HYA direct V141?
Click to expand...
AFAIK, neither one works. Steven merely said that it is possible for one to fly the ACK R-349 to GAILS without a DME or GPS, and he's right as far as that goes. However...
  1. I do not think there is any way to file that as a means of getting to GAILS from on the ground at KHYA,
  2. It would not be legal for the pilot of a /U aircraft to accept a clearance direct to GAILS from on the ground at KHYA, and
  3. As I read his post, Steven never said otherwise on either count.
 
Ron Levy said:
AFAIK, neither one works. Steven merely said that it is possible for one to fly the ACK R-349 to GAILS without a DME or GPS, and he's right as far as that goes. However...
  1. I do not think there is any way to file that as a means of getting to GAILS from on the ground at KHYA,
  2. It would not be legal for the pilot of a /U aircraft to accept a clearance direct to GAILS from on the ground at KHYA, and
  3. As I read his post, Steven never said otherwise on either count.
Click to expand...


The original OP made it clear that he didn't want to head south to ACK only turn around and head north again. He also noted that the radial goes right over his airport. He asked if he could file direct to GAILS instead with only /U. Steven replied with "affirmative."

The OP wants to find an efficient way to head north, not to ACK and turn around on the 349 to go to GAILS. He already knows he can do that.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
The original OP made it clear that he didn't want to head south to ACK only turn around and head north again. He also noted that the radial goes right over his airport. He asked if he could file direct to GAILS instead with only /U. Steven replied with "affirmative."

The OP wants to find an efficient way to head north, not to ACK and turn around on the 349 to go to GAILS. He already knows he can do that.
Click to expand...
The "efficient way to head north" legally going from KHYA to KASH in a /U airplane is to file direct Marconi (LFV) direct Boston (BOS), and then get ATC to give him "radar vectors, direct BOS when able" as soon as he is radar identified.
 
Velocity173 said:
I was curious at how that would look on the flight plan. HYA direct ACK 349 or HYA direct V141?
Click to expand...
You would think just like a preferred route or TEC that overflies an airport (from the Instrument Procedures Handbook):
"Preferred IFR routes are published in the
Airport/Facility Directory for the low and high altitude
stratum. If they begin or end with an airway number, it
indicates that the airway essentially overlies the airport
and flights normally are cleared directly on the airway."​

dtuuri
 
Ron Levy said:
The "efficient way to head north" legally going from KHYA to KASH in a /U airplane is to file direct Marconi (LFV) direct Boston (BOS), and then get ATC to give him "radar vectors, direct BOS when able" as soon as he is radar identified.
Click to expand...

I agree. Just wanted to know why Steven believes the OP can file direct GAILS in this case. Possibly some secret ATC rule that allows it.
 
Velocity173 said:
Does your computer even accept that for routing? That's not a NAVAID or a FIX. All that is, is another way of labeling V-141. I know our computer wouldn't accept that unless it was a radial/DME.
Click to expand...

The computer will accept KHYA direct GAILS, the radial doesn't have to be specified
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top