class C and B comms on sectionals?

That doesn't make any sense to me. So which VOR am I supposed to use
for Jacksonvill Intl. then? It doesn't havve a VOR anywhere in the C
airspace. The only VOR in that entire region is Craig, but that's not
even close to jacksonville.

It doesn't make sense to me to have a chart that defines COMM areas
based on VORs when the chart is for VFR flights only.

If I'm flying to Jacksonville VFR I won't have a VOR to use as my point
of reference because there's none there.

Why would the makers of the chart even consider using radiostations,
all that matters is to have a point of reference from which the courses
should be drawn so you can identify which fq you should contact
approach on, and from that viewpoint using the actual airport makes
more sense than some VOR that might or might not be there.

More importantly, I have NOT found any information that actually states
how the legend on the sectional was meant to be used. Surely there must
be some source of information for these charts detailing how they
should be used? How do examiners and instructors determine that these
numbers next to the frequencies are from VORs? There's nothing on the
chart legend that suggest it.


On 2004-04-24 08:48:20 -0400, "Travis Marlatte"
said:

The radial from the VOR merely defines the airspace for that frequency. It
does not require that you use the VOR in flight to determine whether you are
in that space or not. The same is true for defining TSAs and many restricted
or prohibited airspace.

Relate the information to your sectional and then determine your position
relative to that airspace via normal pilotage.

"Magnus" wrote in message
...

That doesn't make any sense to me. So which VOR am I supposed
to use for Jacksonvill Intl. then? It doesn't havve a VOR anywhere
in the C airspace. The only VOR in that entire region is Craig, but
that's not even close to jacksonville.

It doesn't make sense to me to have a chart that defines COMM
areas based on VORs when the chart is for VFR flights only.

If I'm flying to Jacksonville VFR I won't have a VOR to use as
my point of reference because there's none there.

Why would the makers of the chart even consider using radiostations,
all that matters is to have a point of reference from which the courses
should be drawn so you can identify which fq you should contact
approach on, and from that viewpoint using the actual airport makes
more sense than some VOR that might or might not be there.

More importantly, I have NOT found any information that actually
states how the legend on the sectional was meant to be used.
Surely there must be some source of information for these charts
detailing how they should be used? How do examiners and
instructors determine that these numbers next to the frequencies
are from VORs? There's nothing on the chart legend that suggest
it.


Some facilities don't use bearings at all. Madison approach splits East and
West, and that's how it's indicated in the frequency tab on the sectional.
The Letter of Agreement with Chicago Center designates the division as the
extended centerlines of runway 18/36. They could have used VOR radials, I
suppose, as Madison VOR is on the field. But they didn't. More anecdotal
evidence that these are not radials.

A little more info:

This is all from the Chicago Sectional.

There are three VOR's located inside the Chicago Class B. The frequency
split (in degrees) is: 360 - 179, and 180 - 359.

The split for the Madison Class C is East and West.

The split for the Milwaukee Class C is Southeast and Northwest.

The split for the Moline Class C is S/SE of active runway and N/NE of active
runway.

And finally, the split for the Muskegon TRSA is N of V2 (low altitude
airway) and S of V2.

Given all of this, I think it would be a safe bet that these splits are NOT
based on VOR radials, and the level of precision required is very low.


"Magnus" wrote in message
...
That doesn't make any sense to me. So which VOR am I supposed to use
for Jacksonvill Intl. then? It doesn't havve a VOR anywhere in the C
airspace. The only VOR in that entire region is Craig, but that's not
even close to jacksonville.

It doesn't make sense to me to have a chart that defines COMM areas
based on VORs when the chart is for VFR flights only.

If I'm flying to Jacksonville VFR I won't have a VOR to use as my point
of reference because there's none there.

Why would the makers of the chart even consider using radiostations,
all that matters is to have a point of reference from which the courses
should be drawn so you can identify which fq you should contact
approach on, and from that viewpoint using the actual airport makes
more sense than some VOR that might or might not be there.

More importantly, I have NOT found any information that actually states
how the legend on the sectional was meant to be used. Surely there must
be some source of information for these charts detailing how they
should be used? How do examiners and instructors determine that these
numbers next to the frequencies are from VORs? There's nothing on the
chart legend that suggest it.


On 2004-04-24 08:48:20 -0400, "Travis Marlatte"
said:

The radial from the VOR merely defines the airspace for that frequency.
It
does not require that you use the VOR in flight to determine whether you
are
in that space or not. The same is true for defining TSAs and many
restricted
or prohibited airspace.

Relate the information to your sectional and then determine your
position
relative to that airspace via normal pilotage.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

The split for the Madison Class C is East and West.

The split for the Milwaukee Class C is Southeast and Northwest.


Milwaukee's split, like Madison's, is along the extended runway centerline.
Madison's is fixed along runway 18/36, but Milwaukee's varies with runway
usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway 1/19.

My stuff came from the 11/01/2001 Chicago Sectional so revisions are
possible.

But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies with runway
usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway 1/19".

How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to calling Approach? I
just don't see anything other than a fixed point being used for this
purpose.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

The split for the Madison Class C is East and West.

The split for the Milwaukee Class C is Southeast and Northwest.


Milwaukee's split, like Madison's, is along the extended runway
centerline.
Madison's is fixed along runway 18/36, but Milwaukee's varies with runway
usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway
1/19.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[...]
But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies with
runway
usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway
1/19".

How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to calling Approach?

Seattle has a similar situation. Before calling Approach, you listen to the
ATIS, because the sector divisions (some of them) depend on which direction
the traffic is flowing.

So the answer to your question is: listen to the ATIS. It's not like they
are keeping the active runway secret until you actually talk to them.
"Seattle Approach, Cessna 12345, 20 miles west, 2000', pssst what runway are
you guys using?"

Pete

Thanks for the info...


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[...]
But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies with
runway
usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway
1/19".

How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to calling
Approach?

Seattle has a similar situation. Before calling Approach, you listen to
the
ATIS, because the sector divisions (some of them) depend on which
direction
the traffic is flowing.

So the answer to your question is: listen to the ATIS. It's not like they
are keeping the active runway secret until you actually talk to them.
"Seattle Approach, Cessna 12345, 20 miles west, 2000', pssst what runway
are
you guys using?"

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[...]
But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies with
runway
usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes it's along runway
1/19".

How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to calling
Approach?

Seattle has a similar situation. Before calling Approach, you listen to
the
ATIS, because the sector divisions (some of them) depend on which
direction
the traffic is flowing.

They're not secret. They're just incomprehensible.

Nearby Boeing Field has the same flow-dependent sector boundaries as SeaTac
(http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBFI), and like the OP there is no stated
point on which they are based. If you need to be accurate, assume the SEA
VOR. Don't try asking Boeing Tower which frequency to use for flight
following either; at least while I was based there, they usually couldn't
figure it out.

I much prefer it up at Everett, where approach and departure is handled by
one Center frequency (yes! a Center controller lining up spam-cans for one
of 5 different approaches).

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
They're not secret. They're just incomprehensible.

I didn't suggest that anyone thought the sector boundaries were secret. The
only secrecy mentioned in my post was the active runway.

Nearby Boeing Field has the same flow-dependent sector boundaries as
SeaTac
(http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBFI), and like the OP there is no stated
point on which they are based.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "the same flow-dependent sector
boundaries". If you mean that the approach/departure control listed in the
AFD is the same facility listed for SeaTac, and thus has the same sectors,
I'd have to agree with that. But then, the same thing is true for any
airport using the SeaTac app/dep facility, and I'm not sure it's meaningful
to mention it. Since it's the same facility, of course the boundaries are
the same.

If you mean that Boeing has its own sectors which are similarly dependent on
the current flow, I'll have to disagree. Boeing has no ATC sectors of its
own, since they aren't a radar facility. It does have two tower
frequencies, but those are selected according to the runway you want to land
on, not the active runway.

If you need to be accurate, assume the SEA VOR.

That's my point. You have no need to be so accurate that it matters whether
you assume the VOR or the airport.

Don't try asking Boeing Tower which frequency to use for flight
following either; at least while I was based there, they usually couldn't
figure it out.

Just depends on the controller. I suspect to some extent, controllers don't
want to be bothered. However, if you really want flight following out of
Boeing, what I'd do is call up the clearance delivery frequency before
taxiing and ask if you can get assigned a squawk and controller frequency
for departure.

I much prefer it up at Everett, where approach and departure is handled by
one Center frequency (yes! a Center controller lining up spam-cans for one
of 5 different approaches).

I like PAE better too (after all, that's where my plane is ), but mainly
because it's easier to get a word in edgewise. I never had any trouble
figuring out the frequency to use at Boeing, but finding a quiet moment on
the radio with which to call up the app/dep controller was problematic much
of the time.

Pete

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

But I would have to question your statement: "Milwaukee's varies
with runway usage. Sometimes it's along runway 7/25, sometimes
it's along runway 1/19".


Well, that's the way it is. It's specified that way in the Letter of
Agreement between Milwaukee approach and Chicago Center. I'm familiar with
the letter because I was a controller at Chicago Center.



How often would a pilot know the active runway prior to
calling Approach?


A pilot would know the active runway upon listening to the ATIS. If he does
that before he calls approach then he knows the active runway prior to
calling approach.



I just don't see anything other than a fixed point being used for this
purpose.


Believe what you wish.