E

Echo Tango

Well Known Member
I work at a small-ish approach control in MI (for another week :D) and I have to ask, what's with all of the (50% or more) /G (gps equipment suffix) aircraft flying V-routes :confused:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but radar monitoring is an approved means of secondary navigation. If you've been radar ID'd by ATC, why not just go D-> ?
 
I am no expert, and usually go direct by the way, but the V routes typically are the most direct route with the least amount of exposure to terrain, MOA's, etc....
I rarely fly them, but always look at the V routes when I am flight planning. I figure somebody figured them out for a reason ( I think they date back to the USPS for mail carrying. )
 
As former ATC, I too also have asked that question as well. I think the answer is that it depends. Most of it depends on preffered routing in congested areas.

I can file OSU > LUK and get that route. I filed the return as LUK > OSU, but I got something back like LUK > CVG > Vxxx ..... It took me ten minutes to look up all the way points to program into the 430 when I got my clearance. I never flew that routing. I basically got vectors towards the north, then direct. Plus I can't image that they really wanted me over CVG.

I've flown to Lousiana and back using all direct waypoints. I got diverted to a airway south of Birmingham to avoid some ground fires, but after 10 minutes got cleared direct again.

I've flown to OSH via direct routes, except when crossing Lake Michigan.

I've been told that in certain parts of the northeast, all you are going to get in certain areas are airways due to congestion and preffered routing.

That's one reason why I'm installing a 650 in my RV-10. Rubber banding an airway is so much nicer than programming all those way points on a 430.
 
Why do you Have to ask?

What do you care what someone else thinks is important to control the destiny of their flight? GPS can and does fail. I fly with the VORs and Victor Airways as primary and the GPS as a backup situational awareness crutch and I don't give a ____ that you want to blissfully go it your way blasting through controlled airspace with no advanced preparation, etc, etc. I am restraining myself!

Bob Axsom
 
When I first started flying IFR I tried direct and most times was given a Victor airway. I have given up and just file with airways. Sometimes they give me a direct to cut a corner and sometimes I ask.
I fly the Southeast coast and around MCO and JAX I guess it is busy and they prefer we use airways.
 
safety

During my training it was suggested that I choose V-routes for safety. If I filed a VFR flight plan using V-routes and needed SAR to come find me, they would have a much easier time finding me if I am along a V-route. Sounded good to me at the time.
 
Bob Axsom said:
What do you care what someone else thinks is important to control the destiny of their flight? GPS can and does fail. I fly with the VORs and Victor Airways as primary and the GPS as a backup situational awareness crutch and I don't give a ____ that you want to blissfully go it your way blasting through controlled airspace with no advanced preparation, etc, etc. I am restraining myself!

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

the reason i ask, is generally when i inquire whether the a/c wants Direct to destination or not, they almost always gleefully reply with a "YES!" i'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind filing airways. i understand that in some places aircraft are cleared via preferred routing and there isn't much getting around it.

to counter the point that if GPS does fail, you're being worked by ATC anyway, and that's your backup. "fly heading XXX, vector for CVG, advise when able to resume own navigation." disclaimer: radar does stink in some areas but this will also be going away with ADS-B for the most part.

as far as controlled airspace goes, if you're in contact with ATC on an IFR flightplan, it's not really your job to avoid anything other than VFR a/c :confused:

and on a final note, last i read, something like 50% of VORs are being scrapped anyway.
 
Lemmingman said:
During my training it was suggested that I choose V-routes for safety. If I filed a VFR flight plan using V-routes and needed SAR to come find me, they would have a much easier time finding me if I am along a V-route. Sounded good to me at the time.
Click to expand...

i understand that as far as flying VFR goes, but not when you're on an IFR flight plan and receiving radar services. simultaneous loss of comm/radar is a very big deal and SAR would be initiated immediately.
 
Last edited:
MarkW said:
When I first started flying IFR I tried direct and most times was given a Victor airway. I have given up and just file with airways. Sometimes they give me a direct to cut a corner and sometimes I ask.
I fly the Southeast coast and around MCO and JAX I guess it is busy and they prefer we use airways.
Click to expand...

you could always put a remark in your flightplan, "request direct routing when available." or "NATCA supporter." i've seen that one before. i wonder how far he made it going direct ORD :D

in all seriousness though, i do understand the preferential routing thing, but those aren't really what i'm talking about as most a/c i see on V-routes aren't on any routing we are familiar with (we have certain agreements with surrounding facilities about which routes to use for busy airspace/avoidance).

my suggestion would be to just file whatever route you want to fly, and take whatever route is given. doesn't really matter if you're on V-routes to MCO, if they're not the right V-routes.
 
I disagree with what has just been said. When flying under ifr it is the PICs responsibility, not ATCs, to maintain terrain clearance, with the exception of being on radar vectors.

Planning a direct flight out here in the west means a lot of work with a sectional, to make sure you miss the 6000 foot hills, to say nothing of real mountains. It is just easier to use the airways, where MEAs have already been figured out.
 
BobTurner said:
I disagree with what has just been said. When flying under ifr it is the PICs responsibility, not ATCs, to maintain terrain clearance, with the exception of being on radar vectors.

Planning a direct flight out here in the west means a lot of work with a sectional, to make sure you miss the 6000 foot hills, to say nothing of real mountains. It is just easier to use the airways, where MEAs have already been figured out.
Click to expand...

a valid point. i have zero experience with mountainous terrain and i would likely use V-routes in the hills as well for the exact reasons expressed.

i will say that we do have MVAs (minimum vectoring altitudes) in ATC, which to the best of my knowledge generally coincide with MEAs. i don't know if that's set up as a failsafe where both altitudes (mvas and meas) coincide, or if there are any differences between the two. i will try to find out more about this when i'm at my new facility, which provides services into Livermore ;)
 
ET,
I'm sorta surprised you would ask this question. Maybe I am naive by the fact that the northeast cooridor is very congested and DIRECT anywhere rarely works. Perhaps in your neck of the woods, routes don't matter much but in the NE, forget about it.

If a pilot files direct around here and calls me for a clearance...I typically get annoyed that he was too lazy to even TRY to file the correct routing.

You may argue, why add a victor route when ABC direct DEF is the same thing. My response to that would be that not all victor airways are straight. I know of several that have bends in them.

If I recall correctly you are moving to a much bigger facility? Perhaps that experience will be an eye opener. Or perhaps you could report back and teach me something....??
 
tkatc said:
ET,
I'm sorta surprised you would ask this question. Maybe I am naive by the fact that the northeast cooridor is very congested and DIRECT anywhere rarely works. Perhaps in your neck of the woods, routes don't matter much but in the NE, forget about it.

If a pilot files direct around here and calls me for a clearance...I typically get annoyed that he was too lazy to even TRY to file the correct routing.

You may argue, why add a victor route when ABC direct DEF is the same thing. My response to that would be that not all victor airways are straight. I know of several that have bends in them.

If I recall correctly you are moving to a much bigger facility? Perhaps that experience will be an eye opener. Or perhaps you could report back and teach me something....??
Click to expand...

around here, pilots have absolutely no way to know LOA routing apart from STARs/SIDs. we do pref routing into ORD/DTW and their satellites and give a LOT of FRCs, but only ORD cares about routes into their airspace. DTW only cares about traffic landing at DTW. satellites generally get direct. after apreq'ing it ad nauseum we don't even bother anymore and just send them D-> destination.

as far as moving to a bigger facility goes, yes, but i don't know how much help that will be. just found out my area is 100% feeder/final. do we have any center guys on here?
 
Welcome to the bay area. Are you Oakland Center or NORCAL?
Want to know about real estate prices? Coming from the midwest get ready for sticker shock.

MVA's are frequently lower than the published MEA's available to pilots. Not sure why, it may be MVA's are issued for smaller areas?

Knowing the MVA is often of interest to a pilot - if he's going IFR to a VFR only airport, a vector to the airport can often get him lower than the airway MEA. But the only real way to find out what that MVA might be is to call ATC on the phone.
 
FAA Acronyms

If you FAA guys keep throwing those acronyms at us, we're gonna demand that you post an appendix of acronym definitions before you can post again. :D
Sure, we're pilots and we're supposed to know them, but we don't use them as often as you guys do.

From a NASA guy who has seen and used his fair share of acronyms...
;)
 
Always learning

It is precisely these instances where I break out the FAR/AIM (get one if you don't have one). It is always better to find it yourself so you can be SURE it is accurate, and I prefer a paper vs PDF copy, you will always pick up something you forgot or didn't know (did you know you can fly VFR above 18,000 ft and no its not a trick question about >60,000). These are from memory, so I might be off a bit.

MVA=Minimum Vectoring Altitude
Minimum altitude (with certain exception like approaches) that ATC can vector you. It is based upon radar reception/resolution. They are altitudes in sectors around the radar station and are NOT based upon clearance from obstacles I think...just radar, the controller has other info to keep you clear of obstacles.

MRA=Minimum Reception Altitude. Lowest altitude on a published route segment where reception (of the defining NAVAID mind you) is assured.

MOCA=Min Obstacle Clearance Altitude. Lowest altitude on the route segment that assures obstacle clearance for the entire route. In the US this ALSO assures acceptable (note the difference from MRA) NAVAID reception to 22 mi from the station. This is like the altimeter...it can be a liar. The obstacle height, plus 1000ft/2000 (mountainous) is where they get this number, but the obstacle height is rounded to the nearest 100 ft, so 49 is the same as 0. I have notices in a lot of the areas where I fly lower than the towers (pensacola) there are a lot of towers listed in the high 40's (1049, 2048, etc).

MEA=Min Enroute Altitude. This is basically a combination...and what you want to fly. It provides obstruction clearance, reception of NAVAID, and also adequate comms, but I am not sure that one is guaranteed. This is a good starting point for planning purposes, then round up to the next highest standard cruising altitudes. Use that as your MINIMUM. Even if flying VFR, why not give yourself the best shot if you need any of the aforementioned services.

Finally, grab a sectional (just for the legend) and look them up in this pic. I like using these intersections (in the gulf-side bend area of FLorida) because since we have no mountains, it is a good combination of a lot of these important altitudes. Particularly look at HEVVN
sym7n8.png
 
LAMPSguy said:
It is precisely these instances where I break out the FAR/AIM (get one if you don't have one). It is always better to find it yourself so you can be SURE it is accurate, and I prefer a paper vs PDF copy, you will always pick up something you forgot or didn't know (did you know you can fly VFR above 18,000 ft and no its not a trick question about >60,000). These are from memory, so I might be off a bit.

MVA=Minimum Vectoring Altitude
Minimum altitude (with certain exception like approaches) that ATC can vector you. It is based upon radar reception/resolution. They are altitudes in sectors around the radar station and are NOT based upon clearance from obstacles I think...just radar, the controller has other info to keep you clear of obstacles.
e G]
Click to expand...

Speaking from memory as well, an MVA does ensure obstacle clearance.. For the most part. In some instances (none in my airspace) , an antenna may be depicted on the scope, where an a/c can't "touch" it while being vectored, but I think these are usually near a final where it would be difficult to put in a higher MVA to get planes down.

I guess what I can take from this is I'm just as clueless about MOCAs as you guys are about MVAs. What I can say is I don't work IFR a/c below the MVA. Then again this may be a flat lander thing.

This turned into a very interesting conversation. I feel like I have to get "the book" out again!
 
OKay, I'll bite: How can you fly vfr above 18,000 ft? And no "tricks", like above FL600. Is it:

1. you are not over the US?
2. You are within 1500 ft of Mt. McKinley in AK?
3. Your altimeter says 17,500 but because of a very low altimeter setting you are actually above 18,000 MSL?
 
In my part of the country, the VORs are stuck on mountain tops but not the tallest mountain tops. The minimum crossing altitudes for these are WAY lower than the off route obstacle clearance altitudes (like 3000 ft difference). It is an obvious advantage to drive straight at those VORs to get out of the KAVL valley in IMC. The MEAs drop to low altitudes immediately after passing the VORs.
 
ET,
The "book" of particular interest to you would be your local green book (afd)

I believe this supplement would pertain to your area:
http://aeronav.faa.gov/pdfs/ec_rear_20SEP2012.pdf

If you scan through your green book (afd) you will find many of the preferred IFR routes pertaining to that area. Among a slew of very interesting data that can help you in putting the big picture together. Of course not EVERY airport has a destination listed so you take the next largest airport in that vicinity (that is listed) and take a hack at the preferred IFR route.

The above technique is "old school" as many of the new programs or "apps" will automatically help you with IFR routing and/or filing such a plan.

For anyone else interested, go here:
http://aeronav.faa.gov/afd.asp?cycle=afd_20SEP2012&eff=09-20-2012&end=11-15-2012

Select your state,
Then you have to select the "supplemental" data page. Unless of course you HAVE a copy of your local AFD, the just flip through it to find ALL sorts of useful info.
 
Last edited:
BobTurner said:
Welcome to the bay area. Are you Oakland Center or NORCAL?
Want to know about real estate prices? Coming from the midwest get ready for sticker shock.

MVA's are frequently lower than the published MEA's available to pilots. Not sure why, it may be MVA's are issued for smaller areas?

Knowing the MVA is often of interest to a pilot - if he's going IFR to a VFR only airport, a vector to the airport can often get him lower than the airway MEA. But the only real way to find out what that MVA might be is to call ATC on the phone.
Click to expand...

NORCAL. Houses aren't toooooooo bad in Sacramento, but they're a fair amount more than a typical MI dwelling.

Another thing worth looking into is the MSA on a GPS/RNAV approach. It's just speculation, but all of our approach MSAs are the same as our MVA. maybe TK could weigh in on this
 
BobTurner said:
OKay, I'll bite: How can you fly vfr above 18,000 ft? And no "tricks", like above FL600. Is it:

1. you are not over the US?
2. You are within 1500 ft of Mt. McKinley in AK?
3. Your altimeter says 17,500 but because of a very low altimeter setting you are actually above 18,000 MSL?
Click to expand...

if i had to make a guess, i'd go with 2
 
Answer

There are actually a few answers, specifically one for VFR pilots (FAR 71.33) that says basically a wordier version of #2.

But also, for IFR pilots, a very important distinction (I get so many people on their instrument check with this one...not for failure necessarily just for info) of the difference between condition and rules (IFR/VMC).

FAR 91.185 IFR ops 2 way comms failure. If you are IFR pilot and don't remember the gist, please re-read this, but basically with total comms failure you "shall" continue flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable if VMC, regardless of altitude. That is why in FAR 91.159 there is a provision for VFR cruising altitudes above 18,000.
 
Bob Axsom said:
What do you care what someone else thinks is important to control the destiny of their flight? GPS can and does fail. I fly with the VORs and Victor Airways as primary and the GPS as a backup situational awareness crutch and I don't give a ____ that you want to blissfully go it your way blasting through controlled airspace with no advanced preparation, etc, etc. I am restraining myself!
Click to expand...

I don't use VORs. Don't have a nav radio installed either. All of my flights are usually mountain country.........but I'd never just be an idiot & blast through controlled airspace. For any new cross country flight, I go out of my way to use a current sectional for planning purposes. I'll also use an internet flight planner, and most likely start with airways. Then I'll modify the plan for points of interest, and a more "direct" route. I could care less about VORs. They never work well in mountains anyway, unless you're always high enough to pick up a line of sight signal. Besides, VOR/airways in mountain country, is just a bunch of wasteful hopscotching back & forth. As to GPS failure...............sure. But it's "very" few & far between. I'm more interested in the capability of "situational awareness', that GPS provides. I think it's much more than a "crutch". I'm 100% positive, that moving maps & synthetic vision will go a long way in eliminating so much of the CFIT (controlled flight into terrain), that's constantly occured out this way for many decades.

L.Adamson -- Rip out all the VORs, for all I care..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.