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
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Tomblin wrote:
This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal. One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO" on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high enough to get a signal. They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X, go direct East Texas". It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction until we pick up the VOR. I pretty much always file IFR /u or /a, and I've come to the conclusion ATC does assume you have some sort of GPS or Loran available. I almost always get some sort of "direct". I've only been asked once if I had GPS available, on an IMC Angel Flight from Tulsa to Houston. Soon as I was handed off to Fort Worth (about McAlester, OK) he inquired about GPS, then cleared me direct HOU. Another fun part was the arrival. We did a "best forward speed" intercept of the localizer at 8000, with the approach flown at 160. On another trip into New Orleans, during a STAR, I was given a direct to a fix that "shortcutted" part of the procedure. I've also wondered if ATC somtimes observes the "quality of your performance" and then maybe helps/expects more accordingly. Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, said: Paul Tomblin wrote: That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles Since the entire article was about using GPSes instead of VORs, I don't see *how* you could get the impression that it had anything to do with obstacle clearance. But to each his own. Why the hostility? Not hostility, just confusion. I didn't see any way you could have read it the way you did, so I was wondering if there was something there in the way I worded it that I missed. I thought your post was crystal clear. Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
David Megginson wrote: writes: That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles from ROC, so you couldn't receive it on departure, hills or not. Right -- he should be able to start picking it up around 4000 ft AGL at that distance, if the hills don't interfere. All the best, David At 4,000 feet, I doubt the hills would interfere. The VOR itself sits at almost 1,700 feet and is likely not shadowed by the slightly higher terrain between it and the airport. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Tomblin wrote: In a previous article, said: Paul Tomblin wrote: That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles Since the entire article was about using GPSes instead of VORs, I don't see *how* you could get the impression that it had anything to do with obstacle clearance. But to each his own. Why the hostility? Not hostility, just confusion. I didn't see any way you could have read it the way you did, so I was wondering if there was something there in the way I worded it that I missed. I guess I am confused, too. When ATC clears you to a *VOR* that is not possible to receive, terrain nothwithstanding, it is all about a clearance to Aa VOR, not a GPS waypoint, and whether a VFR handheld can be used to navigate to the VOR as a waypoint rather than as a VOR. The entire system is full of confusion about the use of RNAV. As to the terrain, I read into it "they are sending me towards higher terrain without a vector." Had you stated that your concerns about the terrain was blocking of VOR signal I would have understood. In any case, the entire article was about VOR and GPS. ;-) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message ... Why the hostility? What hostility? Conflict is the mother of creation. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I put "GPS" in the comment part of the flight plan and file /A. I have an
panel mount non-IFR GPS coupled to the autopilot. Howard |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The first one was via the victor airways, the second one was VOR to VOR.
Details: KLVS V190 DHT V234 EMP V10 DODSN KOJC KOSH LNR UKN MCW FOD KSUX Mike In article , (Eric Wickberg) wrote: Mike, did you file airway routes on these flight plans, or direct? Eric |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I believe your instructor was wrong. It is permissible to file an IFR plan
with a direct route, even if all you have to navigate direct with is a handheld or even just a tuna sandwich. You are working harder than you have to, filing an airways or VOR route then requesting direct later. It doesn't hurt you any, but you are wasting your time. wrote in message . .. The AIM addresses the issue of flying direct when outside of NAVAID service volume limits; see section 5-1-7, paragraphs c.4 and c.5. Also see paragraph c.7 regarding obstacle clearance rsponsibility. I raised this same issue with my flight instructor when taking IFR lessons. He explained that although it's not permissable to FILE an IFR direct route that requires GPS without having a certified unit, it's OK to request "direct" if I have my hand-held and I'm in radar contact. So now I always file a route that meets NAVAID requirements and request "direct" once established on the filed route. I just let the controller know that "I have GPS aboard" and my request has never been denied. "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal. One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO" on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high enough to get a signal. They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X, go direct East Texas". It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction until we pick up the VOR. -- Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a freshly- charged Electric Eel and chances are he won't bother you for anything ever again. -- Tanuki |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"hnelson" wrote in message om...
I put "GPS" in the comment part of the flight plan and file /A. I have an panel mount non-IFR GPS coupled to the autopilot. I do the same and often get direct. However, FSS complains to no end when I do it. -Robert |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|