If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Airways (was Getting unlost)
Roger Halstead wrote:
Again, in the eastern half of the country I doubt the RADAR coverage is much better on airways than off. I do agree that it's good to give yourself the most and best possible options. When I've flown down in the U.S. IFR, Boston Centre has occasionally lost me on RADAR even at 7,000-9,000 ft over Vermont and New Hampshire (typically shortly after the handoff from Burlington approach) even on the airways. If I'm VFR, then I might be a lot lower, and RADAR can be really marginal (the same applies even in Canada -- at 3,000 ft along the north shore of Georgian Bay or over Algonquin Park, you're lucky to get RADAR coverage even on the airways, and that's very close to populated areas). On the airway you do have a much better idea of how close you are to the obstacles than off. Still, on a trip of any distance the list of new towers in the NOTAMs can be staggering. Agreed -- actually, that's one argument in favour of the airways. Instead of worrying about 60 new tower NOTAMS, you can just concentrate on the single one that raises MOCA for an airway segment. I don't want to look like I'm strident about this, though -- since it's Usenet, it's easy to back oneself into a corner, and I really don't feel strongly enough about this issue to do that. Of course I fly off the airways, both IFR and VFR, and I don't think there's anything wrong with doing so. This is just an explanation of why I (or someone else) might file a VFR flight plan on the airways, not an attempt to argue that everyone must fly airways all the time or else they'll kill themselves, their passengers, and everyone on the ground in a 200 nm radius. My only objection to VFR on the airways is the critical need to closely maintain altitude. I'd say that it's about the same either way -- if you're not on airways, you're still going to be crossing them all the time, especially in the east. Flight following is a good idea when VFR on the airways, of course, so that you'll be talking to the same controller as any IFRs. In any case, when I'm IFR, I find that the airways are not at all busy at my preferred altitudes (7,000-10,000 ft MSL) -- the twins are up in the teens, the jets and turboprops are in the flight levels, and the VFRs are down below 3,000 ft AGL. Usually, I'm the only aircraft at *any* middle altitude talking to ATC. The biggest conflicts come near airports, where the higher traffic is climbing or descending, but in those cases the other traffic is changing altitude so fast that horizontal separation, not vertical, is the critical part. One final bonus of the airways is that they make position reports easier for other aircraft to understand (in Canada, we make position reports on 126.7 when enroute and not under ATC control). "30 miles east of North Bay" could put you anywhere in dozens or hundreds of square miles, depending on how you're estimating distance; "30 miles east of North Bay on V316" tells me where you are within three or four square miles. All the best, David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
angle points in victor airways | John Hamilton | Instrument Flight Rules | 19 | October 15th 04 04:55 AM |
FA: British Caledonian Airways Boeing 707 Model aircraft | Baron Corvo | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 31st 04 12:37 AM |
Victor Airways on Approach Control Radar? | Andrew Sarangan | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | February 26th 04 02:23 PM |
Victor Airways in Clearance | Wyatt Emmerich | Instrument Flight Rules | 50 | February 15th 04 06:42 PM |
Low and high altitude airways | David Megginson | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | September 9th 03 01:18 AM |