Don Brown and lat-long

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



Here is the route that we file about 1 x week every monday morning. On
www.enflight.com we use the "user selected routing", and insert a route
selection of FXE ARKES PHK *J CRG *G LBE. Enflight.com output is like this:

Flight Plan FXE - LBE
From: FXE -- Fort Lauderdale FL (Fort Lauderdale Executive)
To: LBE -- Latrobe PA (Arnold Palmer Regional)
Alt.: FL290
Time: Wed Sep 24 04:22 (UTC)

Routing options selected: Automatic jet route, Great circle.
Flight plan route:
ARKES PHK J53 CRG SSI090004 SVN270003 EDS270002 MMT CTF270019 CLT090020
GSO270019 PSK120028 ROA270001 LWB120020 EKN120018 MGW120013 IHD300006
Flight totals: fuel: 172 gallons, time: 3:26, distance 869.7 nm.

Ident Type/Morse Code | | Fuel
Name or Fix/radial/dist | | Time
Latitude Longitude Alt. | Route Mag KTS Fuel | Dist
---+--------+---------+-----| Winds Crs TAS Time |------
1. FXE Apt. | Temp Hdg GS Dist | 0.0
Fort Lauderdale FL (For |--------+----+---+------| 0:00
26:11.84 80:10.24 0 | Direct 11.1 | 870
---+--------+---------+-----| 050/4 333 166 0:10 |------
2. ARKES Int. | +1 C 334 165 27 | 11.1
PBIr254 VKZr348/51 |--------+----+---+------| 0:10
26:34.63 80:25.06 146 | Direct 6.3 | 843
---+--------+---------+-----| 312/8 313 185 0:06 |------
3. PHK .--. .... -.- | -12C 313 177 19 | 17.4
d115.4 Pahokee |--------+----+---+------| 0:16
26:46.96 80:41.49 245 | J53 14.9 | 824
---+--------+---------+-----| 310/19 345 257 0:17 |------
4. OHENU Int. | -22C 343 241 68 | 32.3
|--------+----+---+------| 0:33
27:51.99 81:05.27 290 | J53 8.4 | 756
---+--------+---------+-----| 310/25 345 264 0:11 |------
5. ORL --- .-. .-.. | -28C 342 243 43 | 40.7
d112.2 Orlando |--------+----+---+------| 0:44
28:32.56 81:20.10 290 | J53 9.3 | 713
---+--------+---------+-----| 316/31 358 264 0:11 |------
6. BARBS Int. | -28C 354 239 46 | 50.0
OMNr271 ORLr355/46 |--------+----+---+------| 0:55
29:18.45 81:24.52 290 | J53 5.4 | 667
---+--------+---------+-----| 305/28 358 264 0:07 |------
7. MATEO Int. | -28C 354 245 28 | 55.4
CRGr178/34 GNVr088 |--------+----+---+------| 1:02
29:46.01 81:27.21 290 | J53 6.8 | 639
---+--------+---------+-----| 300/34 358 264 0:08 |------
8. CRG -.-. .-. --. | -30C 352 243 34 | 62.2
d114.5 Craig |--------+----+---+------| 1:10
30:20.33 81:30.60 290 | Direct 8.3 | 605
---+--------+---------+-----| 300/34 012 264 0:11 |------
9. Wpt. 109.8/090.0/003.7 | -30C 005 250 43 | 70.5
SSI ... ... .. |--------+----+---+------| 1:21
31:03.29 81:22.47 290 | Direct 10.9 | 562
---+--------+---------+-----| 292/31 013 264 0:14 |------
10. Wpt. 111.6/270.0/002.5 | -31C 007 255 59 | 81.4
SVN ... ...- -. |--------+----+---+------| 1:35
32:00.63 81:11.41 290 | Direct 15.8 | 503
---+--------+---------+-----| 270/29 011 264 0:19 |------
11. Wpt. 111.4/270.0/002.3 | -32C 005 267 87 | 97.2
EDS . -.. ... |--------+----+---+------| 1:54
33:27.14 80:54.29 290 | Direct 5.2 | 416
---+--------+---------+-----| 272/12 015 264 0:07 |------
12. MMT -- -- - | -35C 012 265 29 |102.4
d113.2 Mc Entire |--------+----+---+------| 2:01
33:55.42 80:48.57 290 | Direct 7.8 | 387
---+--------+---------+-----| 281/10 015 264 0:10 |------
13. Wpt. 108.2/270.0/019.2 | -35C 012 264 43 |110.2
CTF -.-. - ..-. |--------+----+---+------| 2:11
34:37.98 80:39.83 290 | Direct 6.5 | 344
---+--------+---------+-----| 272/12 013 264 0:08 |------
14. Wpt. 115.0/090.0/020.2 | -35C 010 265 36 |116.7
CLT -.-. .-.. - |--------+----+---+------| 2:19
35:13.13 80:32.51 290 | Direct 9.0 | 308
---+--------+---------+-----| 291/10 015 264 0:11 |------
15. Wpt. 116.2/270.0/019.1 | -35C 013 262 49 |125.7
GSO --. ... --- |--------+----+---+------| 2:30
36:01.70 80:22.20 290 | Direct 9.7 | 259
---+--------+---------+-----| 281/18 013 264 0:12 |------
16. Wpt. 116.8/120.0/027.9 | -35C 009 263 53 |135.4
PSK .--. ... -.- |--------+----+---+------| 2:42
36:53.84 80:10.90 290 | Direct 4.9 | 206
---+--------+---------+-----| 270/23 016 264 0:06 |------
17. Wpt. 109.4/270.0/000.6 | -35C 011 267 27 |140.3
ROA .-. --- .- |--------+----+---+------| 2:48
37:20.56 80:05.00 290 | Direct 4.3 | 179
---+--------+---------+-----| 270/23 014 264 0:05 |------
18. Wpt. 116.05/120.0/020.3 | -35C 009 267 24 |144.6
LWB .-.. .-- -... |--------+----+---+------| 2:53
37:44.19 79:59.73 290 | Direct 11.6 | 155
---+--------+---------+-----| 271/28 018 264 0:15 |------
19. Wpt. 114.2/120.0/017.6 | -35C 012 267 65 |156.2
EKN . -.- -. |--------+----+---+------| 3:08
38:47.96 79:45.21 290 | Direct 6.9 | 90
---+--------+---------+-----| 279/32 017 320 0:08 |------
20. Wpt. 111.6/120.0/013.4 | -19C 011 319 40 |163.1
MGW -- --. .-- |--------+----+---+------| 3:16
39:27.73 79:35.93 169 | Direct 5.4 | 50
---+--------+---------+-----| 271/27 015 298 0:06 |------
21. Wpt. 108.2/300.0/005.5 | -9 C 010 301 34 |168.5
IHD .. .... -.. |--------+----+---+------| 3:22
40:00.70 79:28.10 63 | Direct 3.1 | 16
---+--------+---------+-----| 279/31 016 287 0:04 |------
22. LBE Apt. | -4 C 010 286 16 |171.6
Latrobe PA (Arnold Palm |--------+----+---+------| 3:26
40:16.56 79:24.29 12 | | 0
---+--------+---------+-----| |------

NOTE: fuel calculations do not include required reserves.
Flight totals: fuel: 172 gallons, time: 3:26, distance 869.7 nm.
Average groundspeed 254 knots.
Great circle distance is 845.6 nm -- this route is 3% longer.

This route (and filing) works very well. Miami Center (ZMA) has no concept of
direct outside of their airspace. Jacksonville (ZJX) gives direct to almost
anywhere as long as it is not in Miami Center (ZMA) airspace.

I think there are way too many instrument rated pilots (and even worse CFIIs)
who could not do a computerized filing if the fuel bill depended on it. Quite
sad and yet the tools are free. You only need to know how to use them.


paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
2011 south perimeter road, suite g
fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
305-389-1742 wireless
954-776-0527 fax
954-965-8329 home/fax

Casey Wilson wrote:
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.

....to which snowbird replied:

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?

.... and then paul k sanchez said:
snip

Here is the route that we file about 1 x week every monday morning. On
www.enflight.com we use the "user selected routing", and insert a route
selection of FXE ARKES PHK *J CRG *G LBE. Enflight.com output is like this:

Flight Plan FXE - LBE
From: FXE -- Fort Lauderdale FL (Fort Lauderdale Executive)
To: LBE -- Latrobe PA (Arnold Palmer Regional)
Alt.: FL290
Time: Wed Sep 24 04:22 (UTC)

Routing options selected: Automatic jet route, Great circle.
Flight plan route:
ARKES PHK J53 CRG SSI090004 SVN270003 EDS270002 MMT CTF270019 CLT090020
GSO270019 PSK120028 ROA270001 LWB120020 EKN120018 MGW120013 IHD300006
Flight totals: fuel: 172 gallons, time: 3:26, distance 869.7 nm.

Ident Type/Morse Code | | Fuel
Name or Fix/radial/dist | | Time
Latitude Longitude Alt. | Route Mag KTS Fuel | Dist
---+--------+---------+-----| Winds Crs TAS Time |------
1. FXE Apt. | Temp Hdg GS Dist | 0.0
Fort Lauderdale FL (For |--------+----+---+------| 0:00
26:11.84 80:10.24 0 | Direct 11.1 | 870
---+--------+---------+-----| 050/4 333 166 0:10 |------
2. ARKES Int. | +1 C 334 165 27 | 11.1
PBIr254 VKZr348/51 |--------+----+---+------| 0:10
26:34.63 80:25.06 146 | Direct 6.3 | 843

snip

NOTE: fuel calculations do not include required reserves.
Flight totals: fuel: 172 gallons, time: 3:26, distance 869.7 nm.
Average groundspeed 254 knots.
Great circle distance is 845.6 nm -- this route is 3% longer.

This route (and filing) works very well. Miami Center (ZMA) has no concept of
direct outside of their airspace. Jacksonville (ZJX) gives direct to almost
anywhere as long as it is not in Miami Center (ZMA) airspace.

Was it your intent to respond to Snowbird's request for for an example? I think
she was asking for an example of how "DUATS converts it to Lat/Lon" [for flight
plan filing purposes]. Its' true that in your example the radial/distance
entries are converted to lat/lon, but the part that ATC sees (which I think was
the focus of the discussion) is just the radial/distances like:

ARKES PHK J53 CRG SSI090004 SVN270003 EDS270002 MMT CTF270019 CLT090020
GSO270019 PSK120028 ROA270001 LWB120020 EKN120018 MGW120013 IHD300006,

The converted lat/lons appear only in the flight log DUAT spits out for your
convenience, and are not part of the ATC flight plan. If this conversion is to
be taken as a hint that lat/lon is preferred [for flight plan filing purposes],
the lat/lons would have to appear in the flight plan.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave

Was it your intent to respond to Snowbird's request for for an example? I
think she was asking for an example of how "DUATS converts it to Lat/Lon" [for
flight plan filing purposes]. Its' true that in your example the
radial/distance entries are converted to lat/lon, but the part that ATC sees
(which I think was the focus of the discussion) is just the radial/distances
like:

ARKES PHK J53 CRG SSI090004 SVN270003 EDS270002 MMT CTF270019 CLT090020
GSO270019 PSK120028 ROA270001 LWB120020 EKN120018 MGW120013 IHD300006,

The converted lat/lons appear only in the flight log DUAT spits out for your
convenience, and are not part of the ATC flight plan. If this conversion is to
be taken as a hint that lat/lon is preferred [for flight plan filing purposes],
the lat/lons would have to appear in the flight plan.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave

Dave:
You are correct. DUATS or enflight.com converts VOR/radial/Distance to Lat/Long
only for purpose of the flight log for the pilot, not the filing with ZMA or
any other center. I have been using this method for coming up with RNAV
waypoints (prefered by the way if not using airways) for quite some time and it
does work well.

Plans such as these have been filed with ZMA, ZJX, ZNY, ZTL, and a host of
others without any problems. Filing direct from FXE to PIT with only lat/long
in between means the controller will tell me to prepare for a full route
clearance. Not exactly what I wanted nor the people I'm training.

Wish you well, fly safe by knowing what safe is.


paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
2011 south perimeter road, suite g
fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
305-389-1742 wireless
954-776-0527 fax
954-965-8329 home/fax

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

I think two of Don's concerns with lat-longs a
1) they provide ATC with no information about what direction you're
headed, so coordination with other facilities is difficult. In fact,
initial separation is problematic.


Well, that's certainly true if you're unfamiliar with latitude and
longitude. Of course, the same situation exists when the pilot files direct
to an identifier the controller is unfamiliar with.



2) ATC apparently has no means to verify a lat-long against an
airport identifier or navaid to ensure that the lat-long was entered
correctly. Serious lack of backup or verification redundancy.


So what? There's also no means to verify that the identifier the pilot
filed direct to is actually the identifier he intended to file.



I don't know about you, but I don't want to be in either place.

My suggested solution for filing GPS direct is:
1) provide a VOR radial-distance waypoint which will be recognized --
one w/in the facility's boundry is a good bet. That way ATC knows
which direction you're headed from a waypoint which will be in their
host computer, and coordination is easier for them


That will work fine as long as your flight doesn't cross a center boundary.



2) put a radial-distance from a VOR near your destination into your
flight plan. if you're crossing several centers, make sure there's
one in each center.


That doesn't guarantee that your flight plan will be accepted by all center
computers. Any given Center does not necessarily recognize all the VORs
that are in adjacent Centers.



I note that the above does not fulfil the letter of the AIM for
direct flights, which require that a direct flight begin and end
over a ground-based navaid (at least as I read it) but I feel
it fulfills the spirit, in that it allows ATC to know which way
I'm headed without guessing and to verify any lat-longs in a
straighforward way.


It allows ATC to know which way you're headed only if they recognize the
base navaid. Unlike filing latitude/longitude, filing a distance and
azimuth from an unknown VOR provides no information by itself.

Why would ATC need to verify any lat-longs?



This said: I don't understand your comment about why one should
file lat-longs. Yes, VORS outside a center's airspace might
not be in the host computer, but this doesn't stop pilots from
flying Victor airways or direct VOR routing which includes
VORs the ATC computer for the facility originating the flight
won't recognize. What I know about ATC host computers could be
printed on a penny and lost, but surely they have some mechanism
for accepting "I don't know where that VOR is, but the routing
through my part of the system looks OK so off you go".


Each Center computer processes the flight plan only to the first fix outside
it's airspace. As long as each computer can process to that fix,
everything's fine. The problem arises when the computer gets to a known fix
in it's own airspace but does not recognize the next fix. It doesn't know
where the flight is going from that point, so it stops processing and prints
XXX on the route after the last good fix.

Incidentally, filing airways does not necessarily avoid this problem. If
the computer doesn't recognize a valid fix on an airway, usually some
distant intersection, it doesn't know where to go either. For example,
let's say you file 1H0..STL.V14.BALDY..ORE. It's a perfectly valid route,
it's in the proper format, all the elements are correct. The problem is V14
extends from New Mexico to Massachusetts, and if the Kansas City computer
doesn't recognize BALDY, (and it probably does not), then it doesn't know
which way to go once you hit STL.



In a sane world, of course, each controller would be able to
instantly convert a lat-long into some bearing from a recognizeable
navaid or airport. It could be done on a used $50 Palm Pilot.
But that would make too much sense.


The controller doesn't need to instantly convert a lat-long into some
bearing from a recognizable fix. The Center computer is going to do that
for him. While the route will show the filed latitude/longitude fixes, each
printed strip in each Fix Posting Area will show an estimated time over a
degree and distance fix from the Focal Point Fix for that Fix Posting Area.

"Snowbird" wrote in message
m...

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.


It will barf if it is asked to actually process to that fix. If there's
another known fix outside it's area prior to that VOR radial-distance to a
VOR that's not in it's database, no problem.

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

How does the flight data processing computer handle direct VOR
routing between VORs it doesn't recognize? Does it barf on that
too, or is this barfing specific to VOR radial-distance?


It will barf on that too. It can't process to a VOR/radial/distance fix if
it does not recognize the VOR the fix is based on. It'd be like asking you
to drive 50 miles due east of a town that does not appear on your road map.

"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
...

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?


It could be, but I wouldn't count on it.

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

I think two of Don's concerns with lat-longs a
1) they provide ATC with no information about what direction you're
headed, so coordination with other facilities is difficult. In fact,
initial separation is problematic.

Initial separation is never problematic, that's what vectors are for.


2) ATC apparently has no means to verify a lat-long against an
airport identifier or navaid to ensure that the lat-long was entered
correctly. Serious lack of backup or verification redundancy.

I don't care if you entered the lat/lon correctly. Only the last
controller cares.


My suggested solution for filing GPS direct is:
1) provide a VOR radial-distance waypoint which will be recognized --
one w/in the facility's boundry is a good bet. That way ATC knows
which direction you're headed from a waypoint which will be in their
host computer, and coordination is easier for them

Doesn't matter to ATC. File direct, we will figure it out. If we have
to. I have cleared many aircraft to a three letter identifier and never
known the name of the airport. If I need it I will ask for his on
course heading, say resume own nav and there he goes.



2) put a radial-distance from a VOR near your destination into your
flight plan. if you're crossing several centers, make sure there's
one in each center.

I can't even hazard a guess as to how many of these carefully concocted
flight plans I have erased and changed to direct to destination. DUATS
is usually an instigator of these ridiculous plans.



I note that the above does not fulfil the letter of the AIM for
direct flights, which require that a direct flight begin and end
over a ground-based navaid

Not necessary.


(at least as I read it) but I feel
it fulfills the spirit, in that it allows ATC to know which way
I'm headed without guessing and to verify any lat-longs in a
straighforward way.

ATC does not care about lat/lons and your requested altitude will
usually give a heads up of your general direction. If I need to know I
can always look up your destination airport(or any other fix) in our
location ID book.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


How hard is it to say "cleared as filed"?



Don't they have to state the destination? "N123BB is cleared to ____ as
filed, departure frequency 123.45, squawk 5554." Or something like that.

"Fred E. Pate" wrote in message
...

Don't they have to state the destination? "N123BB is cleared to ____ as
filed, departure frequency 123.45, squawk 5554." Or something like that.


Yes, a clearance limit is still required, as is an altitude. But the route
itself does not have to be stated, so stumbling over lat/longs is not a
reason for ATC to have an aversion to lat/longs.