KCHD to KMYF

writes:

Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
it is just less than optimal.

If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD-NYL-KMYF and
at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.

KCHD.KNYL.KMYF is 274.5 nm, whereas KCHD.GBN.V66.BARET is 274.2 nm, so your
route is actually longer than mine. Additionally, your route doesn't use any
VORs, so you either must trust your GPS completely or look for KNYL on the
ground as you pass over it. And KNYL is partially in the Dome MOA (ceiling
6000), whereas my route doesn't touch any MOAs and only grazes R-2311 if you
are flying quite low.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about this. Which is not surprising,
since the V66 route was designed by specialists.

Going over GBN is not necessary.

Your route takes you eight nautical miles north of GBN.

That's if I were using VOR navigation.

Your route does not include any VORs.

If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.

Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
course to go direct to KMYF if possible.

To go direct, you'll need authorizations for R-2308B, R-2308A, R-2306A,
R-2507S, R-2512, and R-2510A, responsibility for which is partly Los Angeles
Center and partly Yuma Range Control. In exchange for these six different
authorizations, you'll gain a total of 4.4 nautical miles as compared with
your route over NYL (less for the standard V66 route), which is a gain of
1.6%.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about your route. In fact, it's worse
than the normal V66 route.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
it is just less than optimal.

If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD-NYL-KMYF and
at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.

KCHD.KNYL.KMYF is 274.5 nm, whereas KCHD.GBN.V66.BARET is 274.2 nm, so your
route is actually longer than mine.

Actually, the distances are 273.8 and 273.4 respectfully.

Additionally, your route doesn't use any
VORs, so you either must trust your GPS completely or look for KNYL on the
ground as you pass over it. And KNYL is partially in the Dome MOA (ceiling
6000), whereas my route doesn't touch any MOAs and only grazes R-2311 if you
are flying quite low.

Wrong, I said NYL, which is a VOR, and said nothing about GPS.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about this. Which is not surprising,
since the V66 route was designed by specialists.

Actually, if you want to fly V66 until BARET, the route is
KCHD-GBN-MOHAK-BZA-IPL-BARET-KMYF

Going over GBN is not necessary.

Your route takes you eight nautical miles north of GBN.

Which is not the same as going over GBN.

That's if I were using VOR navigation.

Your route does not include any VORs.

Wrong, NYL is a VOR.

If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.

Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
course to go direct to KMYF if possible.

To go direct, you'll need authorizations for R-2308B, R-2308A, R-2306A,
R-2507S, R-2512, and R-2510A, responsibility for which is partly Los Angeles
Center and partly Yuma Range Control. In exchange for these six different
authorizations, you'll gain a total of 4.4 nautical miles as compared with
your route over NYL (less for the standard V66 route), which is a gain of
1.6%.

Big woof.

I never said anything about going direct as the real world likelyhood of all
those areas being cold is about the same as hitting Lotto.

What I said was, if I were using GPS I would plan a waypoint roughly between
BZA and NYL. That would avoid all restricted areas.

Then enroute I would check if it were possible to transition any of the
restricted areas and change course FROM THAT POINT. I didn't say FROM THAT
POINT the first time since any real pilot would know that is implied by
"checking enroute".

And, looking at it closely, the GPS waypoint would be set just slightly
south of where the R-2307 area turns north, thus avoiding all restricted
areas for a total distance of about 272 nm.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about your route. In fact, it's worse
than the normal V66 route.

The main reason to avoid V66 is the other traffic on the route.

The main reason to use V66 is it keeps a less than accurate pilot well away
from the restricted areas.

If you have GPS, know how to use it, and are uncertain of the state of all
the restricted areas, the GPS route is the shortest possible IF you wind up
being unable to transition any of them.

If you don't have GPS and are a low time pilot with marginal navigation skills,
I would then suggest taking the slighly longer VOR to VOR route.

A big part of real flying is planning alternatives and flying in a manner
appropriate for your equipment and skill level.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

Wrong, NYL is a VOR.

Wrong again. NYL is a Tacan (at least according to Airnav). KNYL is the
Yuma airport. BZA is the nearby VOR on V66.

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument for
argument's sake? What a waste of bandwidth.

Mike

Mike Adams writes:

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument for
argument's sake? What a waste of bandwidth.

A lot depends on who makes the suggestion. The same suggestion will generate
different amounts of sophomoric noise in replies depending on who makes it.

"Mike Adams" wrote

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
for
argument's sake? What a waste of bandwidth.

No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.
--
Jim in NC

On May 3, 10:30*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Mike Adams" wrote

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
for
argument's sake? *What a waste of bandwidth.

*No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. *Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. *It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. *He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments..

--
Jim in NC

It's human nature to correct the ignorant, if indeed that
is the case. Can a simulator enthusiast offer information
to actual pilots is the question. Ostracism should be
reserved for individuals not interested in sincere
participation. If he is that, then you are right.

---
Mark

On May 4, 8:26*am, Mark wrote:
On May 3, 10:30*pm, "Morgans" wrote:



"Mike Adams" wrote

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
for
argument's sake? *What a waste of bandwidth.

*No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. *Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. *It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. *He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.
--
Jim in NC

It's human nature to correct the ignorant, if indeed that
is the case. *Can a simulator enthusiast offer information
to actual pilots is the question. Ostracism should be
reserved for individuals not interested in sincere
participation. If he is that, then you are right.

---
Mark

Is deliberate ignorance really ignorance? After all these months/
years do you think that he is really interested in 'sincere'
participation? Seems to me he is always after the conflict, not
looking for any truth or conclusion. Which, by the way, is a typical
aspect of a troll.

Keep on feeding him, and falling for his baits, and you'll have to
keep on 'correcting' him when he is uncorrectable. He has no interest
of learning anything from you. He just wants to provoke you into an
argument.

From the very first post in this thread, you could tell it was bait.
He knew he would stoke the fire by answering before any real pilots.
Which is why he went out of his way to not post any of his typical
'questions', and pretended to look like he knew what he was talking
about. It wasn't until after you guys took the bait that he started
spouting the 'tell me what am I saying that is wrong' tripe,
successfully derailing the conversation.

Some people never learn it seems. Sorry.

Mike

I actually do have a question for the knowledgeable people here
though.

I'm still a newbie student pilot, so don't have a bunch of
experience. Out here in the midwest we don't have a bunch of the
restricted airspace like apparently out in the desert. Especially the
ones in question here that look like heavily clustered, and ranging
from 0 AGL to 80000 MSL. When calling the controlling agency is it
typical to be able to ask clearance into them all of them at once? Or
must it be done piecewise. Any risk of getting cleared into some of
them, then getting told the next is 'active' and having to adjust for
it? Could be problematic especially for the clustered restricted like
2306A, 2308A, 2308B, etc.

Is it typical for these clusters to have two different controlling
agencies? Probably not I hope.

Seems to someone like me not used to dealing with confusion like these
heavily clustered areas that it would be a pain to deal with.

Mike

Am 04.05.2010 04:30, schrieb Morgans:

No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat
you with experience."

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.

"Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:30:58 -0400, Morgans wrote:

No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.
--
Jim in NC

Simple.

There are a lot of bored people on RAP. Many of them too old to fly so
they come here for something to do.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!