<ventmode>
I am an inexperienced instrument pilot and I just don't understand why
we file routes on our flight plans at all!

I never get what I filed, anyway, and it's not uncommon that the route
I actually get shares not a single waypoint with what I filed.

It is an interesting game to try to guess what they want you to do,
file that, and see if I get it back, but I so seldom win at it. I even
use the trick of, yes, filing what they gave me last time, but no, even
that is not sure-fire.

It's not that I'm complaining, but, okay, I'm complaining a bit.

- is the route box in the flight plan form just an anachronism from
a more flexible time in history
- why shouldn't I just file DIRECT?
- The equipment I have access to is /A. If I did file direct, will
the routing I get be /A friendly? This is perhaps tricky and illegal,
because I know that I couldn't actually fly the direct route I asked
for. (well, that's a total side discussion, I know, what I can do with
radar vectors and a VFR GPS)

This is all only a minor annoyance, except for when I am sitting in the
runup area with a newly picked up clearance, trying to figure out where
those fixes are while the hobbs meter is running.

</ventmode>

-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

> wrote:
> - is the route box in the flight plan form just an anachronism from
> a more flexible time in history

To a certain extent, yes. At least in some parts of the world with
busy airspace, where ATC pretty much just assigns you a canned route.

> - why shouldn't I just file DIRECT?

Many people do just that. Personally, I think it's just being lazy.
Look up the routes in the back of the AFD. If your exact
destination/origin isn't there, try and figure out what the most
likely route is based on nearby airports. Or access the FAA route
database on-line (http://tinyurl.com/8w2l). It's always nice to hear
"cleared as filed".

>This is all only a minor annoyance, except for when I am sitting in the
>runup area with a newly picked up clearance, trying to figure out where
>those fixes are while the hobbs meter is running.

See above :-)

On 29 Mar 2005 11:38:34 -0800, wrote:

>
><ventmode>
>I am an inexperienced instrument pilot and I just don't understand why
>we file routes on our flight plans at all!
>
>I never get what I filed, anyway, and it's not uncommon that the route
>I actually get shares not a single waypoint with what I filed.


It is interesting to see the variations in ATC behavior throughout the
country. Where do you fly? I fly out of the NW Chicago suburbs and
find the ORD controllers to be relatively consistent with their
initial route assignments. I probably get my requested enroute
portion 85+% of the time.

-Nathan

> Look up the routes in the back of the AFD. If your exact
> destination/origin isn't there, try and figure out what the most
> likely route is based on nearby airports. Or access the FAA route
> database on-line (http://tinyurl.com/8w2l). It's always nice to hear
> "cleared as filed".

I have done both of those, with middling success. The route database
seems rather sparse. For example, it's not got a lot of low altitude
California to California dep/dest pairs other than SFO/LAX.

I do remember there was a website for the old Bay Approach which had a
lot of preferred local and TEC routings. Can=B4t find it.

Avweb has an article about this, too:
http://tinyurl.com/6k25m

dave j

As you gain experience in a given area of the country, you will
eventually learn what they like to do in that particular part of the
country. Then you can get to a point where you can guess what's coming
maybe three times out of four. That's it. Your chances of getting
cleared as filed in busy airspace you're unfamiliar with are
effectively zero. The only time you can get what you want, you can
also get direct. The stuff in the A&FD is worthless.

You shouldn't just file direct because, well, you just shouldn't. It
will make Don Brown mad. It will make your CFII wonder why he spent
all that time teaching you about choosing routes.

Actually, when I don't feel like trying to outguess the controllers,
that's exactly what I do. At best, I'll throw in a couple of fixes
along the route so that every controller can have a couple of fixes he
recognizes.

In real life, controllers assume you have a GPS and can go direct to
any fix. They don't care if the GPS is IFR approved because they can
only approve GPS direct when they can provide RADAR monitoring, and
there's no regulation covering what you can and can't use for enroute
nav anyway.

Michael

wrote in news:1112125114.549042.263410
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> <ventmode>
> I am an inexperienced instrument pilot and I just don't understand why
> we file routes on our flight plans at all!
>
> I never get what I filed, anyway, and it's not uncommon that the route
> I actually get shares not a single waypoint with what I filed.

This depends almost entirely on where you are flying. I almost always
get 'cleared as filed', and often after departure get cleared direct to
destination. My guess is you're in the northeast, probably relatively
close to NYC. That isn't representative of most of the country.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

File whatever you want. It is an exercise in familiarity with the
airspace to file a route.If I don't file direct, I usually file VOR to
VOR, I don't like refrering to airways, that way I learn where the
VOR's are. But nothing wrong with filing, and flying, direct. After
all, direct is the shortest route. The CFII gods are all hung up on
"routes". (LIke the air on "Victor 81" is somehow "better" than other
nearby air). And like in "yeah we took Victor 491 ALL the way to
Butler". "OOoooh, I am sooo impressed". I suppose that was like way
hard to do, LOTs harder than going direct or some OTHER less prestigous
route like VICTOR 13 or Victor 69.

I was in Gary Indiana and had to file IFR to get over to Moline and
onto Colorado. This is through Chicago airspace, very busy. After
carefully previewing my route, talking to FSS, I filed a nice looking
route. I was given a clearance for a different route, and when I became
airborne, I was cleared for something else again. Nice thing was they
gave me my own controller, no one else on the freq. He wanted to know
all about my Husky.

It depends upon where you depart and where you arrive.

Departing out of or arriving into high traffic areas, you can usually
expect a canned routing. This is to help the understaffed controllers
keep the flow moving.

It depends upon what lies in between the departure and arrival points.

You will not get a routing along the Lake Michigan shoreline during
AirVenture. You can overfly or underfly the CBAS VFR, but IFR they will
send you around to the west and south.

The "computer" will not accept your routing. This is one of those secret
things that a controller will tell you when you inqire as to why your
"Cleared as filed" flight plan is being amended. He/she doesn't know
why, it is due to something further down the line towards your destination.

Sometimes you can successfully argue to stay on your filed route with
the caveat that you will have to negotiate with each and every
controller at each handoff. Each will try to amend your clearance, just
like the first one. They, too, will not know why the "computer" will not
accept your routing.

Do not accept an amended clearance without first looking at it and
determining if it will adversely affect the safety of flight.
Does it add time and distance affecting your FAA mandated fuel status?
Does it place you over water without floation gear?
Does the amended routing place you in an area of adverse weather?
You do not have to accept their routing, you can propose alternate
routes more to your liking.

john smith > wrote:
> Do not accept an amended clearance without first looking at it and
> determining if it will adversely affect the safety of flight.
> Does it add time and distance affecting your FAA mandated fuel status?

You can certainly try playing the "minimum fuel" card, but that may or may
not get you the routing you desire. Landing at an airport short of your
destination to refuel is always a possibility.

Roy Smith > wrote:

> Look up the routes in the back of the AFD.

In the Northeast US, filing the preferred route does not always guarantee a
cleared as filed, for the "real" preferred routes are not the published
routes.

Flying into Boston from the west at a low altitude is one example of a
cleared route that differs from the A/FD's published routes.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote:

> Roy Smith > wrote:
>
> > Look up the routes in the back of the AFD.
>
> In the Northeast US, filing the preferred route does not always guarantee a
> cleared as filed

No, it doesn't. The published routes are a good guess, though. The worst
that happens if you file the "wrong" route and you get a full route
clearance.

This is due to a lack of understanding of how ATC routing works, and
also because very few instructors understand it themselves. Check the
preferred routes in the back of the AF/D. If none exists, check the
STAR's for the destination and enroute airport. You can't go blasting
through a class B airspace, even under IFR. Most flights are radar
vectored in these airspaces, and ATC wants you to arrive at clearly
defined fixes.


wrote in news:1112125114.549042.263410
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> <ventmode>
> I am an inexperienced instrument pilot and I just don't understand why
> we file routes on our flight plans at all!
>
> I never get what I filed, anyway, and it's not uncommon that the route
> I actually get shares not a single waypoint with what I filed.
>
> It is an interesting game to try to guess what they want you to do,
> file that, and see if I get it back, but I so seldom win at it. I even
> use the trick of, yes, filing what they gave me last time, but no,
even
> that is not sure-fire.
>
> It's not that I'm complaining, but, okay, I'm complaining a bit.
>
> - is the route box in the flight plan form just an anachronism from
> a more flexible time in history
> - why shouldn't I just file DIRECT?
> - The equipment I have access to is /A. If I did file direct, will
> the routing I get be /A friendly? This is perhaps tricky and illegal,
> because I know that I couldn't actually fly the direct route I asked
> for. (well, that's a total side discussion, I know, what I can do with
> radar vectors and a VFR GPS)
>
> This is all only a minor annoyance, except for when I am sitting in
the
> runup area with a newly picked up clearance, trying to figure out
where
> those fixes are while the hobbs meter is running.
>
> </ventmode>
>
> -- dave j
> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>

In the northeast there are 2 sets of "preferred routes".

thera are TEC routes, and there are preferred routes.

Which one you get will often depend on your altitude.



On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:23:40 -0500, "Peter R."
> wrote:

>Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>> Look up the routes in the back of the AFD.
>
>In the Northeast US, filing the preferred route does not always guarantee a
>cleared as filed, for the "real" preferred routes are not the published
>routes.
>
>Flying into Boston from the west at a low altitude is one example of a
>cleared route that differs from the A/FD's published routes.

On 29 Mar 2005 14:01:07 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>As you gain experience in a given area of the country, you will
>eventually learn what they like to do in that particular part of the
>country. Then you can get to a point where you can guess what's coming
>maybe three times out of four. That's it. Your chances of getting
>cleared as filed in busy airspace you're unfamiliar with are
>effectively zero. The only time you can get what you want, you can
>also get direct. The stuff in the A&FD is worthless.


there are routes in certain areas in the northeast that are just about
guaranteed to be what the AFD publishes, and in busy airspace (which
of course is where the TEC routes are)

In article >,
wrote:

> In the northeast there are 2 sets of "preferred routes".
>
> thera are TEC routes, and there are preferred routes.
>
> Which one you get will often depend on your altitude.

This is one of the more brain-dead things the FAA does. There may be good
reasons why, from an internal FAA point of view, there are two sets of
routes. From a user perspective, however, it's absurd that they're not
folded into a single table.

As an inexperienced not-yet instrument pilot (hopefully that comes this
weekend), I have been pretty lucky using the preferred routes in the A&FD.
On cross countries during training or even filing to distant locations for
practice, I have heard "cleared as filed" more often than not. Where there
are no preferred routes, I choose airways that are clear of major traffic.
Its worked so far, knock on wood. True, it can be a taxing mental exercise,
but I find the gamble sort of fun.

As a aside, why pick up your clearance with the hobbs running? Given that
you may not get your filed route and thus may need to study the charts
and/or program the new fight plan into the GPS, pick up your clearance while
still on the ramp and with the engine off. That gives you time to clear
your mind, do last minute tasks and be prepared for flight before starting
to siphon your wallet. I preflight the plane and then pick up the clearance
on my hand-held. Once the route is confirmed, I pick up the highlighter and
start marking the charts. When I start the plane, I am ready to fly.

Bob

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> <ventmode>
> I am an inexperienced instrument pilot and I just don't understand why
> we file routes on our flight plans at all!
>
> I never get what I filed, anyway, and it's not uncommon that the route
> I actually get shares not a single waypoint with what I filed.
>
> It is an interesting game to try to guess what they want you to do,
> file that, and see if I get it back, but I so seldom win at it. I even
> use the trick of, yes, filing what they gave me last time, but no, even
> that is not sure-fire.
>
> It's not that I'm complaining, but, okay, I'm complaining a bit.
>
> - is the route box in the flight plan form just an anachronism from
> a more flexible time in history
> - why shouldn't I just file DIRECT?
> - The equipment I have access to is /A. If I did file direct, will
> the routing I get be /A friendly? This is perhaps tricky and illegal,
> because I know that I couldn't actually fly the direct route I asked
> for. (well, that's a total side discussion, I know, what I can do with
> radar vectors and a VFR GPS)
>
> This is all only a minor annoyance, except for when I am sitting in the
> runup area with a newly picked up clearance, trying to figure out where
> those fixes are while the hobbs meter is running.
>
> </ventmode>
>
> -- dave j
> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>

Not really. The two sets of "preferred" routes (like Peter pointed out) are
due to altitude restrictions dictated by the traffic flow from the
KJFK/KLGA/KEWR trio. This is further driven by the runways in use. With the
possible departure/arrival combinations from the three airports, it would be
very hard to guess the preferred route of the moment. To put that into a
table would be confusing.

That being said, the routes from Long Island are pretty predictable going
west/southwest. Pretty much follows the preferred routes on the FAA
database.

Marco Leon

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is one of the more brain-dead things the FAA does. There may be good
> reasons why, from an internal FAA point of view, there are two sets of
> routes. From a user perspective, however, it's absurd that they're not
> folded into a single table.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

I wrote:
>> This is one of the more brain-dead things the FAA does. There may be good
>> reasons why, from an internal FAA point of view, there are two sets of
>> routes. From a user perspective, however, it's absurd that they're not
>> folded into a single table.

Marco Leon <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not really.

Yes, really. The AFD contains two sections with preferred routes.
One is called something like "Low-level preferred routes", the other
is called "TEC routes". They both contain routes from origin to
destination, with certain altitude, speed, and time restrictions.
From my point of view as a user, it's just extra work to have to flip
back and forth between two different sections to find what I'm looking
for.

> The two sets of "preferred" routes (like Peter pointed out) are
> due to altitude restrictions dictated by the traffic flow from the
> KJFK/KLGA/KEWR trio.

No, they're due to the fact that some routes go through ARTCC
airspace, and some don't. This may be important to the FAA, but from
my point of view as a user, I couldn't care less whether I ever get
handed off to somebody with "center" in their name.

> This is further driven by the runways in use. With the possible
> departure/arrival combinations from the three airports, it would be
> very hard to guess the preferred route of the moment.

There's no doubt that the routes in use change to adapt to weather,
traffic patterns, facility outages, etc, but that's not what I'm
talking about. All I'm saying is that if they're going to publish a
bunch of routes, they should just put them all in a single place so
they're easier to find. Splitting the information into two distinct
AFD sections is just plain stupid.

Doesn't always work.
You can pick up your clearance but be held for release.
Happened to me this weekend at when trying to depart KMWO (Middletown OH).
We received our clearance prior to startup, were told to call back for
release when ready to depart, and taxied to the departure end of the
runway. We called back for release from Rwy 05 and were advised that
there was an aircraft ten miles out on the approach to Rwy 23 to the
airport. Winds were 060 at 7kts. After the inbound aircraft went missed,
we called for release and were advised that there was a second aircraft
now inbound on the 23 approach.
We could have requested a VFR departure and gotten out immediately, but
instead elected to wait for the first aircraft to arrive. Little did we
know ATC would slip another aircraft inbound while we waited. The worst
part of this was there was a VFR aircraft behind us who had to wait
because there was not enough room on the taxiway to go around us.

RAM wrote:
> As a aside, why pick up your clearance with the hobbs running? Given that
> you may not get your filed route and thus may need to study the charts
> and/or program the new fight plan into the GPS, pick up your clearance while
> still on the ramp and with the engine off. That gives you time to clear
> your mind, do last minute tasks and be prepared for flight before starting
> to siphon your wallet. I preflight the plane and then pick up the clearance
> on my hand-held. Once the route is confirmed, I pick up the highlighter and
> start marking the charts. When I start the plane, I am ready to fly.

jsmith > wrote:
> The worst part of this was there was a VFR aircraft behind us who
> had to wait because there was not enough room on the taxiway to go
> around us.

If you didn't want to depart VFR, couldn't you have at least taxied
down the runway and pulled off on the first turnoff to let the VFR guy
behind you get out?

"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Doesn't always work.
> You can pick up your clearance but be held for release.
> Happened to me this weekend at when trying to depart KMWO (Middletown OH).
> We received our clearance prior to startup, were told to call back for
> release when ready to depart, and taxied to the departure end of the
> runway. We called back for release from Rwy 05 and were advised that there
> was an aircraft ten miles out on the approach to Rwy 23 to the airport.
> Winds were 060 at 7kts. After the inbound aircraft went missed, we called
> for release and were advised that there was a second aircraft now inbound
> on the 23 approach.
> We could have requested a VFR departure and gotten out immediately, but
> instead elected to wait for the first aircraft to arrive. Little did we
> know ATC would slip another aircraft inbound while we waited. The worst
> part of this was there was a VFR aircraft behind us who had to wait
> because there was not enough room on the taxiway to go around us.
>

What type aircraft were you flying and what type was the VFR aircraft behind
you? The runway is 100' wide, there should have been plenty of room for you
to allow the VFR aircraft to taxi past you and depart. Nothing prevents you
from taxiing on the runway briefly.

I have not tried this. I fly out of a field (PAO) where I get my
clearance from ground control, when I call for taxi instructions. I've
never called them with the engine off, saying "hey, I'll just sit here
and call back for taxi when I understand this clearance." Could try it.
Usually, there is no need, as another poster mentioned, there will
always be a "hold for release" during which I'll be sure to have time
to persue my charts leisurely.

My CFII actually had us shut down in the runup area once or twice, as
we were told we'd be waiting 20 minutes or so. I thought that it was
not allowed to shut down in a movement area, but he thought otherwise.
We debated it, but I could not find the reg.

I think an interesting twist on the route clearance discussion is that
we all tend to do most of our instrument training and fooling around in
fair weather, which in the SF Bay Area, means a northwesterly wind and
all the bay airports are on the "Northwest Plan." However, when the
weather is actually low and you're IFR "for real" because you need to
be, it's much more likely to be the "Southeast Plan." The low-altitude
routings for slow aircraft are definitely different. (don't know about
other a/c).

So, in my last case, I think I was just surprised that even though what
I had filed was something I had seen before, I got something different,
and it was because we had a real howler of a storm cooking. (This was
last Sunday afternoon/evening.)

Specifically, I was coming back to Palo Alto from Fresno. I had filed:
FRES5.ECA V195 SUNOL V334 SJC. What I got was RDR VEC V230 PANOS V485
GILRO. This was about the same distance, but took me over higher
terrain. I had filed for 4000, but this route necessitated 8000, which
was a drag because freezing level was 9000 in the area, and I did
indeed pick up some ice. Interesting how approach is very accomodating
in getting you down lower when you actually *have* ice, though not so
much when you're on the ground telling them that you might get it.

All that said, it was a truly lovely flight. In and out of the clouds
the whole way, night, rain on and off sometimes heavy, visibility
varying from 20 miles to nothing, etc. My pax got a little nervous when
I was using the flashlight to check the wings, but other than that, we
had a great time -- all culminating in a greaser landing at PAO in a
healthy crosswind.

-- dave

> wrote:
> I have not tried this. I fly out of a field (PAO) where I get my
> clearance from ground control, when I call for taxi instructions. I've
> never called them with the engine off, saying "hey, I'll just sit here
> and call back for taxi when I understand this clearance." Could try
> it.

That's what I usually do. Call up, get my clearance, tell the guy
I'll call back for taxi in 5. In cold weather, I'll usually start up
first, mostly to give the engine more time to warm up before I get going.

> My CFII actually had us shut down in the runup area once or twice, as
> we were told we'd be waiting 20 minutes or so. I thought that it was
> not allowed to shut down in a movement area, but he thought otherwise.
> We debated it, but I could not find the reg.

Typically, the runnup area is not a movement area. Is there a dashed
line setting it off from the rest of the taxiway? In any case, I
can't think of any regulation which says you can't shut your engine
off, as long as you maintain a radio watch. You could do this by
keeping one radio on, or even with a handheld. Of course, you can
even shut down the radios if the controller gives you permission to go
off the frequency.

>Specifically, I was coming back to Palo Alto from Fresno. I had filed:
>FRES5.ECA V195 SUNOL V334 SJC. What I got was RDR VEC V230 PANOS V485
>GILRO. This was about the same distance, but took me over higher
>terrain. I had filed for 4000, but this route necessitated 8000, which
>was a drag because freezing level was 9000 in the area, and I did
>indeed pick up some ice. Interesting how approach is very accomodating
>in getting you down lower when you actually *have* ice, though not so
>much when you're on the ground telling them that you might get it.

Keep in mind that while they may be as accomodating as possible, if
there's terrain below you, that limits how accomodating they can be.
The idea of being at the MOCA and picking up ice in a no-ice piston
single doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:46:38 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> In the northeast there are 2 sets of "preferred routes".
>>
>> thera are TEC routes, and there are preferred routes.
>>
>> Which one you get will often depend on your altitude.
>
>This is one of the more brain-dead things the FAA does. There may be good
>reasons why, from an internal FAA point of view, there are two sets of
>routes. From a user perspective, however, it's absurd that they're not
>folded into a single table.


Well, it's just a case of separate interests, I believe.

The low altitude TEC routes are hammered out by the respective
approach control facilities sitting around a table and (in the
northeast, at least) listening to how the 800lb gorillas (NY,
Philadelphia, Washington, and Boston TRACONs) want to route traffic.

The JFK sector, for example, accepts no handoffs from Bradley going
south, so Bradley has to hand off to PVD, who then hands off to NY,
and the pilot is scratching his head wondering why, especially since
going the other way, the route is completely different. NY gives
their stuff to whomever they want. Somebody launching at an airport
20 miles away from BDL, who happens to be in the NY sector (OXC for
example) gets a completely different route.

The higher altitudes are center's responsibility, and their interests
are totally different.

At least that's how I understand it.

But I think you make a good point - they could all be in one table by
altitude.

> wrote:

> In the northeast there are 2 sets of "preferred routes".
>
> thera are TEC routes, and there are preferred routes.
>
> Which one you get will often depend on your altitude.

I agree with you that the route you get depends on the altitude (to some
degree), however there must be three "preferred routes" in the Northeast
US: The preferred, the TECs, and the ones you actually receive.

I can tell you based on numerous flights into Boston's Logan that neither
the TEC nor the preferred is what one receives when one files with a TAS of
185 and an altitude of 11,000.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Look up the routes in the back of the AFD. If your exact
> destination/origin isn't there, try and figure out what the most
> likely route is based on nearby airports. Or access the FAA route
> database on-line (http://tinyurl.com/8w2l). It's always nice to hear
> "cleared as filed".

I have done both of those, with middling success. The route database
seems rather sparse. For example, it's not got a lot of low altitude
California to California dep/dest pairs other than SFO/LAX.

I do remember there was a website for the old Bay Approach which had a
lot of preferred local and TEC routings. Can´t find it.
-----

Is this the one you are looking for?
http://www.faa.gov/ats/oakaifss/TEC/TECInfo.htm

>My CFII actually had us shut down in the runup area once or twice, as
>we were told we'd be waiting 20 minutes or so. I thought that it was
>not allowed to shut down in a movement area, but he thought otherwise.
>We debated it, but I could not find the reg.

Couldn't you just turn off the master switch so the hobbs stops, and
kept the engine running?

> Couldn't you just turn off the master switch so the hobbs stops, and
> kept the engine running?

Hobbs usually runs on oil pressure. The master wouldn't kill it.
However, I got bitten by an airplane whose hobbs ran on the master. I
turned the master on to get clearances and such before starting the
motor, and noticed the hobbs clicking away with the engine off.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 1 Apr 2005 20:20:17 -0800, wrote:

>>My CFII actually had us shut down in the runup area once or twice, as
>>we were told we'd be waiting 20 minutes or so. I thought that it was
>>not allowed to shut down in a movement area, but he thought otherwise.
>>We debated it, but I could not find the reg.
>
>Couldn't you just turn off the master switch so the hobbs stops, and
>kept the engine running?


Hobbbs meters are driven by oil pressure.

Not necessarily.
Correctly, it is an oil pressure switch. When oil pressure exceeds a
preset value, the switch closes a contact, permitting current to flow.
On some installations, the Hobbs is wired directly to the DC buss which
is energized when the Master is turned on.
My experience is that High Performance aircraft use the oil pressure
switch and fixed pitch, under 200 hp aircraft use the Master switch.

wrote:
> Hobbs meters are driven by oil pressure.

Mine is activated by the squat switch on the left gear leg.

"jsmith" > wrote in message =
...
> Not necessarily.
> Correctly, it is an oil pressure switch. When oil pressure exceeds a=20
> preset value, the switch closes a contact, permitting current to flow.
> On some installations, the Hobbs is wired directly to the DC buss =
which=20
> is energized when the Master is turned on.
> My experience is that High Performance aircraft use the oil pressure=20
> switch and fixed pitch, under 200 hp aircraft use the Master switch.
>=20
> wrote:
>> Hobbs meters are driven by oil pressure.
>

> [My hobbs meter] is activated by the squat switch on the left gear leg.

Cool. You don't have to pay for taxi time.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message =
m...
>> [My hobbs meter] is activated by the squat switch on the left gear =
leg.
>=20
> Cool. You don't have to pay for taxi time.
>=20
> Jose

I pay for *everything* about my airplane.
But yes, you got the idea right, Jose.
Taxi time doesn't add to airframe, engine, or propeller hours.

Does ATC really care about details of the route as long as you end up at
one of the fixes used for the STAR arrivals? I've always had good luck
filing a direct route to the STAR fix. For instance, to the Detroit
satellite airports, I would file direct to CRUXX and then to the
destination. I do the same thing for Chicago-Midway: direct to CGT and
then to MDW. As long as my route does not go through any other airspace
or MOA, I get cleared as filed. Same for Cleveland area airports: direct
to KEATN and then to the destination airport. I've not had many
instances where this technique has failed.





Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
>> Roy Smith > wrote:
>>
>> > Look up the routes in the back of the AFD.
>>
>> In the Northeast US, filing the preferred route does not always
>> guarantee a cleared as filed
>
> No, it doesn't. The published routes are a good guess, though. The
> worst that happens if you file the "wrong" route and you get a full
> route clearance.