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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I've never had a problem filing direct to any distant H-class VOR.
Could it be true that L-class and TVORs are the only ones which are recognized only locally? ---JRC--- "Stan Gosnell" wrote in message = ... =20 If it doesn't recognize the VOR, it would have to barf on both. =20 =20 --=20 Regards, =20 Stan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
First, I'm just passing along advice that I got from a Baron-operating
controller on the west coast. I have to assume that he knows the system better than I do. Second, we are talking about filing direct, not via airways. His argument, which I am not in a position to refute, is that every host computer in the National Airspace System can find a lat-long, while that is not true of every radial-distance. Bob Gardner "Snowbird" wrote in message m... "Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:oAHab.386624$Oz4.170720@rwcrnsc54... I did not intend that pilots file lat-longs exclusively *puzzled* did I say or imply that you did? just when they need something far enough away from the departure airport that a radial-distance might not be in the local host computer. Perhaps I did not explain clearly enough what I don't understand about your advice. (I assume you mean "VOR" or "radial distance from VOR" above. I also assume that by "local host computer" you mean the ARTCC host computer.) I don't understand the necessity of filing a lat-long in any circumstance. People file and fly Victor airway or direct VOR routing where many of the waypoints are not in the host computer of the originating ATC facility. For that matter, people file to airports which aren't in the originating ATC facilities host computer all the time. How could this work, if (as you imply) a routing which contains waypoints not in the ATC host computer is a problem? It seems to me that it's a problem only if the destination, and the distant VOR from which the radial-distance is measured, are the ONLY waypoints in the flightplan. In that case, I suggest that the solution is not to tell people "go ahead and file lat longs". The problem is to tell people "file enough waypoints to define your route locally". If I'm wrong, and the host computer will indeed barf on an IFR routing which contains a VOR radial-distance to a VOR not in the database, I wait to be corrected. But in that case, I don't understand how filing an IFR routing which includes direct-VOR-VOR segments that the local host doesn't know about works, either. IOW, I don't understand what problem requires lat-longs to solve it. And yes, we've flown trips where the VOR radial- distance we chose turned out to be just outside one center's airspace and we were requested to give them a VOR or VOR radial-distance w/in their airspace which defined our route, so I understand the problem of ATC host computers which store fewer waypoints than my obsolete Palm VIIx. I just don't see how filing a lat-long would solve any problem. Perhaps I'm just dense. Cheers, Sydney |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:Rg0bb.393287$cF.121073@rwcrnsc53... First, I'm just passing along advice that I got from a Baron-operating controller on the west coast. I have to assume that he knows the system better than I do. Second, we are talking about filing direct, not via airways. His argument, which I am not in a position to refute, is that every host computer in the National Airspace System can find a lat-long, while that is not true of every radial-distance. He's correct about that. Lat/longs always work for flight data purposes. However, this really is a deep subject. When I get out of the throws of this work week (which I'm right in the middle of) I'll try to post some of my opinions and observations on this subject. I tend to be with you in the lat/long camp myself, but with a host of preconditions which I will hopefully be able to share in this thread in a couple of days. Chip, ZTL |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
It just occurred to me that when I list a Radial/Distance point in
DUATS as part of a route, DUATS converts it to Lat/Lon. Maybe that's a hint that Lat/Lon is preferred. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I filed to a lat/long once. They accepted my flight plan, but when the
controller gave me my clearance, he did not know how to call out my waypoint. This, as well as some other reasons (the way ATC writes the lat/long is NOT easy to read), are why ATC is not big on lat/longs. I have had better luck with VOR/DME's. "Casey Wilson" wrote in message . .. It just occurred to me that when I list a Radial/Distance point in DUATS as part of a route, DUATS converts it to Lat/Lon. Maybe that's a hint that Lat/Lon is preferred. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug" wrote in message om... I filed to a lat/long once. They accepted my flight plan, but when the controller gave me my clearance, he did not know how to call out my waypoint. This, as well as some other reasons (the way ATC writes the lat/long is NOT easy to read), are why ATC is not big on lat/longs. I have had better luck with VOR/DME's. How hard is it to say "cleared as filed"? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... How hard is it to say "cleared as filed"? I don't think most of the pilots here will know, but it sure sounds like a great seminar title for the next NATCA convention. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Casey Wilson" wrote in message . ..
It just occurred to me that when I list a Radial/Distance point in DUATS as part of a route, DUATS converts it to Lat/Lon. Maybe that's a hint that Lat/Lon is preferred. Hmmmm...we use DUATS to file all the time, and have never observed this. Can you give more details? Were you using duats on the web or through a different program? What format did you use to enter the VOR radial/distance? Thanks! Sydney PS what the people who wrote DUATS prefer, and what ATC prefers, are not necessarily the same thing. you might *think* the former would talk to the latter -- but don't count on it |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|