Victor Airways vs. GPS Direct

callmesven

callmesven

Pre-Flight
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
37
Location
Santa Rosa, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Sven
I posted this question on another site and got a lot of looks but only one response. Please let me know what you think about this question.

After 25 years of no flying I finally got back in the saddle and reinstated my private ticket last year. "Back in the day" I did a lot of dead reckoning and a little victor airway flying since I was in very rural Minnesota. I now live in California and own a plane at a class D airport. I have not ventured more than a couple hundred miles from home as I rebuild my skills and confidence. Some parts are like getting back on a bike but so much has changed in 25 years.

The biggest change for me is the use of GPS. So, my question to those of you who have flown with these amazing gadgets for years is this, GPS direct or victor airways? I’m thinking about a trip from Northern California to Yellowstone and possibly Oshkosh in the future. Do I use the GPS as backup and stay on the victor airways or do I fly direct? I'm very comfortable using the GPS and prefer it over the "old way" but I'm not completely sure if I should be favoring it.

I do not have my IFR ticket and my plane tops out at 15,000 ft. What’s your experience?
 
Sven,

A lot of people go GPS Direct for the whole trip but I like waypoints about every 1/2 hr. It's only a bit longer and gives me a plan B if the GPS fails.

Joe
 
Like everything else, "it depends." If you've got mountainous terrain that you're dealing with, direct might not be an option, at least not a practical one. If the plane tops out at 15,000, the real question is what's it's practical max altitude? Mountain waves can get your attention even when you have extra power, and I've had a few out on this half of the country (little ones) that have gotten me at Vy in a Cherokee to maintain altitude. So, I'd be cautious about such things.

If terrain and airspace aren't an issue, go direct. It's faster which therefore means cheaper. What I do is I follow along with VORs to keep an idea on my position and have backups ready in case the GPS fails. If you're around a bunch of airspace, the GPS helps you keep aware of just where the boundaries are, which makes it easier for you to avoid accidentally busting airspace.

Glad you're back to flying! Enjoy it!
 
callmesven said:
I posted this question on another site and got a lot of looks but only one response. Please let me know what you think about this question.

After 25 years of no flying I finally got back in the saddle and reinstated my private ticket last year. "Back in the day" I did a lot of dead reckoning and a little victor airway flying since I was in very rural Minnesota. I now live in California and own a plane at a class D airport. I have not ventured more than a couple hundred miles from home as I rebuild my skills and confidence. Some parts are like getting back on a bike but so much has changed in 25 years.

The biggest change for me is the use of GPS. So, my question to those of you who have flown with these amazing gadgets for years is this, GPS direct or victor airways? I’m thinking about a trip from Northern California to Yellowstone and possibly Oshkosh in the future. Do I use the GPS as backup and stay on the victor airways or do I fly direct? I'm very comfortable using the GPS and prefer it over the "old way" but I'm not completely sure if I should be favoring it.

I do not have my IFR ticket and my plane tops out at 15,000 ft. What’s your experience?
Click to expand...

In the flatlands (including those little bumps they call mountains east of the Mississippi River) GPS direct works quite well for VFR trips and except for a few areas of high density traffic like the New England coast down to DC it also works pretty well for IFR too. You may not be able to go exactly "direct" on a great circle route because of busy Class B airspace and some military airspace. To avoid that, I recommend you use some sort of computerized flight planner, either online or PC based, to construct a route that bypasses such areas using any convenient waypoints to demark the route (airports, VORs, NDBs, and even intersections work well because they should be in your GPS database).

OTOH, in the mountains it's safer to follow major roads and a GCR is likely to pass over some pretty tall stuff if you're very far south of I80. You might find it easier to use airways there or just plot a route based on the topography. One thing that GPS does for mountain flying is that (as long as it's working) it makes getting lost and flying down the wrong valley or canyon a lot less likely.
 
Just depend on where I'm flying from and where I'm going. I'm at a Class D airport under Class B; so, I have to fly a DP if IFR. From there, I usually file direct destination when IFR, but, there are places I know that won't happen. There are a lot of TEC clearances in some parts of the country.

VFR, I would fly direct unless terrain, obstacles or air space restrictions didn't allow. I try to stay out of MOAs in some places; in other places, the MOAs aren't an issue--you have to learn what's flying and when.

So, IMO, it all depends.

Best,

Dave
 
I often use a combo of both.
For instance I may plan a flight with waypoint every 1 hour. Some of the time I may be on airways and other times I am just going direct. Since you are mostly VFR you can plan whatever works best for your flight that keeps you away from obstructions, undesirable airspace, etc. But allows you to get to your destination in the safest fastest way.
 
As others have said - it depends on where you are. When I flew to Las Vegas from Iowa a few years ago, even though I had GPS, I flew Victor airways just because I wasn't comfortable with the terrain in the southwest, and I wanted to make sure I had 'guaranteed' terrain clearance at certain altitudes.

Otherwise, if GPS is available, I use it to keep me pointed in the right direction simply because it is the easiest and quickest way to get somewhere.

Although, when putzing around in Iowa, you can always fly IFR - I Follow Roads, and on a clear night at 6000', you can pretty much see every major city in the state. ;)
 
To the best of my recollection, I have never flown a Victor airway. What would be the point to a VFR pilot?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
To the best of my recollection, I have never flown a Victor airway. What would be the point to a VFR pilot?
Click to expand...

Flight following in the mountains? Before the common use of LORAN and GPS in light airplanes I would occasionally plan and fly along airways on a VFR trip just because it was easier to navigate from VOR to VOR and that often meant you were on an airway. In the mountains this was the only way to ensure that you could receive VOR transmissions and remain in contact with ATC (which seemed prudent in the mountains).
 
CJones said:
As others have said - it depends on where you are. When I flew to Las Vegas from Iowa a few years ago, even though I had GPS, I flew Victor airways just because I wasn't comfortable with the terrain in the southwest, and I wanted to make sure I had 'guaranteed' terrain clearance at certain altitudes.
Click to expand...

Same here. In fact, that flight (Iowa to Las Vegas) is the only time I've ever flown Victor Airways, for the reasons you describe.

Otherwise, since I learned to fly 16 years ago, I've flown GPS direct. (Well, it was actually "Loran Direct" the first couple of years...:D)
 
When I take a long flight in busy areas, I'll do that. For instance, Dallas to San Diego. From the Dallas area to El Paso one could wander around a lot VFR. From El Paso, west to San Diego is fairly channelized and I'd like to flight follow. I use the airways through the mountains and busy airspace. If I ever lost an engine in those areas, I'd really like someone to know where I am.

I've also done that over the ocean to the Bahams and to Mexico. Same general idea; although, I've mostly done that IFR.

Best,

Dave
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Terrain avoidance in certain areas.
Click to expand...

That's what windows are for???

gismo said:
Flight following in the mountains? Before the common use of LORAN and GPS in light airplanes I would occasionally plan and fly along airways on a VFR trip just because it was easier to navigate from VOR to VOR and that often meant you were on an airway. In the mountains this was the only way to ensure that you could receive VOR transmissions and remain in contact with ATC (which seemed prudent in the mountains).
Click to expand...

When I flew through the Canadian Rockies with my brother in a C-120, the locals advised sticking to the road and not taking the airways even though the airways were a bit shorter. That way if you went down you stood some chance of being found since you could probably put it on or very near the road.

YMMV.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
To the best of my recollection, I have never flown a Victor airway. What would be the point to a VFR pilot?
Click to expand...


I've found them very useful on the long VFR trips I've made with only VORs and NDBs. Might occasionally require deviating slightly from a great-circle route, but so far I've found myself picking a V-airway, here and there, as simply the best option. I usually consider airways first when planning such a flight, although I may go for hours nowhere near an airway, if that suits the "mission".

To me, these airways generally represent the best compromise between utility, safety, and convenience.

They tend to be laid out along routes between airports and/or navaids, with terrain clearance in mind. More often than not they also run fairly parallel to, and close to, major highways and RR lines.

I would imagine many of them started as the same routes used when the only navaids (other than landmarks) were light beacons and torches on the ground. In the bad old days, they started by following roads and RRs, which generally take the path of least resistance, terrain-wise, follow rivers, ridges, and other good visual features, and lead to and from towns (eventually). Then lights were added to assist night and poor-vis flying, then the radio beacons. The old routes, for the most part, did not change much. There are numerous Victor airways that do not follow this pattern, having been made possible only by radio navaids, but I think the vast majority do follow old routes proven to be the most effective when flying with minimal equipment.

Advantages for VFR? Less time over the worst and most desolate terrain, more towns, roads, and airports enroute (makes visual nav. easier in addition to providing more options for weather/fuel/emergency stops), more interconnecting navaids... and there's already a line on the chart. :D

And if you have let someone know, while filing or when using FF, that you're flying a particular airway to some waypoint or destination, if they lose comms with you and you do not show up in time, SAR efforts will be greatly simplified.

With GPS, a lot of this becomes moot, but one might find oneself planning a route with GPS that "does what Victor airways do", for all the reasons mentioned above.

Disadvantages? The only one I can think of is congestion, but personally I have never had a problem with that, even near navaids. I don't consider the time spent deviating from a great-circle route to be a disadvantage, really...sometimes it's well worth it to avoid putting yourself out in No Man's Land, out of gliding distance to anything, maybe with increasing headwinds or deteriorating wx, to save an hour or so in a day's flying.
 
Thanks for all the input. Looks like "it depends" is the most viable answer. There's lots of good stuff to consider here.
-Sven
 
rottydaddy said:
I've found them very useful on the long VFR trips I've made with only VORs and NDBs.
Click to expand...

In Atlas (our Pathfinder) I've got two VORs in my panel. I've also got two GPS's on board -- one in the panel, one on the yoke.

I can't remember the last time we turned the VORs on. I'm pretty sure they still work, though... :D

In Sweetie (our Ercoupe) I've got one VOR, and one GPS. I don't know if I've ever turned the VOR on?

VORs and NDBs are like sextants, compasses, and sun dials. Good back-ups to the real navigational tool -- which is unquestionably GPS.
 
When I fly and am in contact with ATC, either IFR or VFR with flight following, I always have a VOR tuned in with DME or have one on the 530 where it provides that info. If they ever ask your location, that is what they will want. If you ever give FSS a pilot report, they will also want location as a VOR radial and distance.

When you get Pilot Reports, that's how the location will be conveyed.

Best,

Dave
 
Ron Levy said:
The real navigational tool is pilotage/DR -- everything else is just an aid to navigation.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it, but I was going to say "the brain". There must be a working brain in the toolbox, preferably a nice sharp one. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
The real navigational tool is pilotage/DR -- everything else is just an aid to navigation.
Click to expand...

Yes, but either gets notably less accurate when you're in hard IMC down to minimums. Dead reckoning an approach can leave you, well, dead.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Terrain avoidance in certain areas.
Click to expand...
"Certain areas" may be true but I definitely wouldn't count on victor airways to give you the most logical way through the mountains for small airplanes. Look at V95 between HBU (Blue Mesa) and DRO (Durango, CO).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yes, but either gets notably less accurate when you're in hard IMC down to minimums. Dead reckoning an approach can leave you, well, dead.
Click to expand...
Actually, to make a smooth approach, you are using DR, but with a very short update cycle based on needle position.
 
Everskyward said:
"Certain areas" may be true but I definitely wouldn't count on victor airways to give you the most logical way through the mountains for small airplanes. Look at V95 between HBU (Blue Mesa) and DRO (Durango, CO).
Click to expand...

Good point. There's certainly more to it than just "I'm on a victor airway so I'm good."

As to that particular route: :yikes:
 
gismo said:
Even in the clouds?
Click to expand...

Sure with Airspeed, Altimeter, compass and watch with second hand.

If altitude is steady you' re in level flight.

If compass is steady you are in straight flight in a known direction.

With the clock you can tell how far and which direction you've come from ann estimate how far and which direction to go.

I beleive they flew IFR before they invested those new fangled gyro instruments 50 some years ago.
 
My poor (or should I say avionics challenged) airplane hasn't any VORs, not that I would follow airways even if it had (being in the flatlands with some bumps nearby). GPS, backup GPS, and follow everything on the chart.
 
steingar said:
My poor (or should I say avionics challenged) airplane hasn't any VORs, not that I would follow airways even if it had (being in the flatlands with some bumps nearby). GPS, backup GPS, and follow everything on the chart.
Click to expand...

You can still follow airways with that setup, though. It's worth noting that when I'm assigned airways (this usually comes about the time I'm approaching Harrisburg on my way south, with the words "Aztec 6927Y, have new routing advise ready to copy"), I plug the waypoints into the GPS and follow those most of the time. I then plug them into the VORs and keep those lined up so as to note that yes, they both check out with eachother.

My preference, if I had to choose installed GPS or installed Nav/Coms, would be to have dual Nav/Coms (preferably flip/fop) with a DME and an ADF, and then a hand-held GPS as backup. You can still follow the handheld legally for VFR, but you'll need the Nav/Coms for IFR anyway. My Aztec doesn't have a DME in it, and I've considered having one installed, despite the IFR GPS I have.
 
RMCN172RG said:
Sure with Airspeed, Altimeter, compass and watch with second hand.

If altitude is steady you' re in level flight.

If compass is steady you are in straight flight in a known direction.

With the clock you can tell how far and which direction you've come from ann estimate how far and which direction to go.

I beleive they flew IFR before they invested those new fangled gyro instruments 50 some years ago.
Click to expand...

Needle, Ball, Airspeed.

Set power, forget power.

Level the wings
Center the ball
Pitch to maintain airspeed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top