More IFR with VFR GPS questions

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:34:24 -0500, Peter R. wrote:

A Lieberman wrote:

All the training in the world does not give you the real
world scenarios.

All the training in the world does not give you *all* the real world
scenarios. It certainly gives you some. ;-)

Thanks for clarifying what I meant Peter :-)

Though when I think about it, my VFR training required a diversion to
another airport. My IFR training did not require it. Wonder why that is?

Both scenarios play out the same, finding the airport and navigating to
it.....

Maybe something to consider for future IFR students?

Allen

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:07:14 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

You had originally filed direct from one airport to another one 337 miles
away. How did you intend to do that if you were unable to accept a
reroute
to something other than a standard VOR or intersection?


Precisely my point Steve.


???



Even though I filed direct, off airwaves, ATC recognized my limitation
that
I could only accept a standard VOR or intersection.


Surely you could accept an airway? What else would you expect ATC use for a
reroute, other than VORs, intersections and airways?



It was NOT assumed by
ATC that I had GPS capability even though I filed direct.


I think it likely that ATC did assume you had GPS capability precisely
because you filed direct. They have to assume that you have the capability
to fly what you filed and at this time it is GPS that is most likely to give
you that capability.



Had they given me a GPS intersection rather then a VOR or VOR associated
intersection, I would have said unable, alerting them to the fact I am
slant Alpha. That was the point I was trying to bring across in my
original post.


What is a "GPS intersection"?



YRK vortac is 148 miles southwest of 2G2. Do you believe there's
something
wrong with being routed over a VOR that far away?


Considering there are quite a few VORs closer then YRK, I was not looking
that far down the road in establishing where I am to where I am going. I
was looking within 45 to 60 miles, not so far down the road.

I am situationally aware of what my next VOR will be when I fly IFR, as I
have them printed as well having the en route maps open. I also change my
NAV 1 and NAV 2 as I progress in my flight path to assist in my situation
awareness.

The problem I had as slight as it was, was finding the frequency to the
VOR. Wasn't in the list of nrst on my Garmin 296, and being in IMC, it's
not exactly conducive of finding a navaid on the paper maps especially 90
odd miles away. I wasn't given a vector, just direct York, direct Bowling
green, so I did not know what direction to look on the en route maps. Had
center given me a vector, I at least would have known which direction to
look.

I would have expected a closer VOR, not one 90 miles away to go direct to.
As you can see, not that big a deal, but for a person like me, learning
the
ropes of IFR, when I am by myself, I don't have CRM available. Small
things do make a big difference.


Did you examine your chosen route at all when you were planning your trip?
Almost halfway between 2G2 and BWG lie a couple of MOAs, your filed route
goes through them. Just a few miles south of the MOAs is York VOR. Your
reroute was probably necessary because the MOAs were in use.

"S Herman" wrote in message
...

First off I am an instrument student, not yet rated. I have a lot more
marine navigation experience than aviation IFR experience, but let me
throw this out.
It seems possible to me to fly direct between most any 2 points, off
airways, without vectors, using 2 VOR's and a sectional chart. Just
plot a series of radial intersections at appropriate distances from
each other to ensure remaining close (for gov'ment work) to the
desired direct track. Is this illegal?


No.



Or is it just that you won't get a clearance using this method?


You can get a clearance using that method. ATC cannot know what you're
using for navigation unless you tell them and there's no reason for them to
ask.



I am assuming that the direct
course & altitude would be within reception range of the (2) needed
stations.


Then what's the point of plotting a series of radial intersections at
appropriate distances from each other to ensure remaining close to the
desired track? The desired track would be the two radials that define a
direct course between the two VORs.



This would require a bit of OBS twisting for sure.


It would require you to select the outbound radial from the first VOR and
the inbound radial from the second VOR.



You would use your VFR GPS to reassure yourself that you are on that
desired track. If anyone asks, your primary means of navigating were by
use of VOR's.


If you have a VFR GPS why bother with a course between two VORs?

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

I don't know if it is legal or not (that would be up to the FAA, after the
accident), but it would be impractical. I have almost never flown an IFR
clearance that I have carefully plotted at home. The clearance I get is
different, and there are numerous reroutes enroute. Imagine being in
bumpy air in the soup, and given "direct WAYNS". You are somewhere
between two VORs flying an airway. Ok, with an intersection you can
figure out pretty much where you are, now try plotting it on your lap on a
sectional, crossing from front to back, going over three creases, bumping
along in the clouds. Betcha can't even draw a straight line, let alone
calculate points along it.


If you filed via airways and with an equipment suffix that does not indicate
any RNAV capability you should not be told to proceed direct to an
intersection. If you are just respond "Unable."

A Lieberman wrote:

Maybe something to consider for future IFR students?

Keep this in mind when you get your CFII rating.

--
Peter

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:01:06 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Even though I filed direct, off airwaves, ATC recognized my limitation
that
I could only accept a standard VOR or intersection.


Surely you could accept an airway? What else would you expect ATC use for a
reroute, other than VORs, intersections and airways?

Obviously airways start and terminate from an intersection or VOR. I would
have assumed you would have understood what I meant. But then assume does
have another defintion I guess.

If I have to fly to a VOR via a certain radial, to pick up an airway, no
big deal. Point I am trying to drive home is that ATC did recognize I was
slant Alpha.

I think it likely that ATC did assume you had GPS capability precisely
because you filed direct. They have to assume that you have the capability
to fly what you filed and at this time it is GPS that is most likely to give
you that capability.

I'd think you were incorrect on this. They sent me to a VOR. Doesn't the
flight strip show what I filed?

Had they given me a GPS intersection rather then a VOR or VOR associated
intersection, I would have said unable, alerting them to the fact I am
slant Alpha. That was the point I was trying to bring across in my
original post.


What is a "GPS intersection"?

Since I don't have an IFR GPS (yet), maybe I worded it rather poorly, but
are there not other routes that GPS may offer then standard NAV routes?

I would have expected a closer VOR, not one 90 miles away to go direct to.
As you can see, not that big a deal, but for a person like me, learning
the
ropes of IFR, when I am by myself, I don't have CRM available. Small
things do make a big difference.


Did you examine your chosen route at all when you were planning your trip?
Almost halfway between 2G2 and BWG lie a couple of MOAs, your filed route
goes through them. Just a few miles south of the MOAs is York VOR. Your
reroute was probably necessary because the MOAs were in use.

Please re-read what I wrote above. As I originally posted, the MOA's were
hot, and the re-route was due to the MOAs. I would have expected a
clearance to a VOR closer to where I was and then if needed run the airways
until I am cleared the VORs.

Don't get me wrong, the clearance I received was much simpler then it could
have been, which I am gratefully thankful for, being a single pilot in IMC.

I just would have expected a clearance to a fix within a range that at
least I could have picked up on the nrst function of my GPS, not some 90
miles away.

Allen

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:59:28 -0600, A Lieberman wrote:

Please re-read what I wrote above. As I originally posted, the MOA's were
hot, and the re-route was due to the MOAs. I would have expected a
clearance to a VOR closer to where I was and then if needed run the airways
until I am cleared the VORs.

Correction. Last sentence should read:

until I am cleared the MOA.

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...

Obviously airways start and terminate from an intersection or VOR. I
would have assumed you would have understood what I meant. But then
assume does have another defintion I guess.


I've learned it's best not to assume anything here.



If I have to fly to a VOR via a certain radial, to pick up an airway, no
big deal. Point I am trying to drive home is that ATC did recognize I was
slant Alpha.


Of course they did, it's right on the strip. But they also recognized you
had RNAV capability based of your filed route.



I'd think you were incorrect on this.


Why?



They sent me to a VOR.


They sent you direct to a VOR that was out of range. Doesn't that suggest
to you that they assumed you had RNAV capability? Were you originally
cleared as filed or via radar vectors? How could they clear you as filed
without assuming you had RNAV capability?

Is there another fix that would have provided sufficient avoidance of the
MOAs with less deviation than YRK VORTAC?



Doesn't the flight strip show what I filed?


Yes, it wouldn't be very useful if it didn't.



Since I don't have an IFR GPS (yet), maybe I worded it rather poorly, but
are there not other routes that GPS may offer then standard NAV routes?


An intersection is a point defined by any combination of courses, radials,
or bearings of two or more navigational aids. I believe you're thinking of
waypoints.



Please re-read what I wrote above. As I originally posted, the MOA's were
hot, and the re-route was due to the MOAs. I would have expected a
clearance to a VOR closer to where I was and then if needed run the
airways until I am cleared the VORs.


A re-read confirms you didn't mention the MOAs. If you knew the MOAs were
hot why did you file a route through them?



I just would have expected a clearance to a fix within a range that at
least I could have picked up on the nrst function of my GPS, not some 90
miles away.


Well, there's no reason to expect that.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Steven, you could be outdoors and and ask the assembled crowd what
color the sky is. They all reply "blue" and you would still ask them
to prove it.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Steven, you could be outdoors and and ask the assembled crowd what
color the sky is. They all reply "blue" and you would still ask them
to prove it.

Ron Lee

Heh, heh. Where Steven lives, there's a *lot* of gray sky.
He'd have a right to be skeptical. :-)