PDA

View Full Version : Don Brown and lat-long


Bob Gardner
September 18th 03, 11:05 PM
I know Don Brown. He is a good 'ol country boy, and an entertaining writer, but he is not a pilot. His aviation world is circumscribed by the AIM and Air Traffic Control Handbook, with no latitude (no pun intended) allowed. His Avweb column about filing IFR is almost perfect, but there are airplane-owning controllers around the country who will tell you that host computers throughout the system recognize lat-longs, while a radial-distance from a VORTAC several hundred miles away might get bounced because the VORTAC is not in the host computer. Keep filing lat-longs where appropriate even if you never get up to FL390.

Bob Gardner

Chip Jones
September 19th 03, 06:07 AM
Oh the shame! :-)

One of Don's problems with L/L's is that by themselves they don't tell the controller diddly about which direction you will be headed. They are just a jumble of numbers on a flight progress strip to a busy ATCS. Secondly, because they don't tell the controller diddly about which direction you will be headed, the controller has no way of verifying that they are correctly filed by you, DUATS or FSS until after you get radar identified. One digit of mistake on the filer's part can cause mountians of headaches for ATC with both IFR separation requirements and just plain old inter-ATC coordination fumbles. And speaking of radar identified, what happens if you *don't* get radar identified...?

File Lat/ longs at your pleasure, but don't be surprised at the results. Down here in ATC-land, we'll probably be surprised for you...

Chip, ZTL
"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message et...
I know Don Brown. He is a good 'ol country boy, and an entertaining writer, but he is not a pilot. His aviation world is circumscribed by the AIM and Air Traffic Control Handbook, with no latitude (no pun intended) allowed. His Avweb column about filing IFR is almost perfect, but there are airplane-owning controllers around the country who will tell you that host computers throughout the system recognize lat-longs, while a radial-distance from a VORTAC several hundred miles away might get bounced because the VORTAC is not in the host computer. Keep filing lat-longs where appropriate even if you never get up to FL390.

Bob Gardner

September 19th 03, 02:19 PM
Chip Jones > wrote:
: File Lat/ longs at your pleasure, but don't be surprised at the results.
Down here in ATC-land, we'll probably be surprised for you...

After reading a bunch of Don's articles, perhaps a reasonable
compromise would be comments describing what the L/L is for? I,
personally, prefer using prominent navaid radial/distance for defining an
RNAV (or unknown identifier) rather than L/L anyway. I don't think in
terms of L/L (and my VFR GPS isn't quite as approved as the DME/VOR RNAV).

YMMV
-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

Steven P. McNicoll
September 19th 03, 04:33 PM
> wrote in message
...
>
> After reading a bunch of Don's articles, perhaps a reasonable
> compromise would be comments describing what the L/L is for? I,
> personally, prefer using prominent navaid radial/distance for defining an
> RNAV (or unknown identifier) rather than L/L anyway. I don't think in
> terms of L/L (and my VFR GPS isn't quite as approved as the DME/VOR RNAV).
>

The problem with navaid radial/distance is that it relies on the navaid
location being known to the flight data processing computer. If the
computer doesn't recognize the base fix it won't process it. The one fix
format that always works is latitude/longitude.

Snowbird
September 19th 03, 04:57 PM
"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message >...
> I know Don Brown. He is a good 'ol country boy, and an entertaining
> writer, but he is not a pilot. His aviation world is circumscribed by
> the AIM and Air Traffic Control Handbook, with no latitude (no pun
> intended) allowed. His Avweb column about filing IFR is almost perfect,
> but there are airplane-owning controllers around the country who will
> tell you that host computers throughout the system recognize lat-longs,
> while a radial-distance from a VORTAC several hundred miles away might
> get bounced because the VORTAC is not in the host computer. Keep filing
> lat-longs where appropriate even if you never get up to FL390.

Bob,

I think two of Don's concerns with lat-longs are:
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.
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 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
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 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. I object to the letter of the AIM because
AFAIK VORs near busy airports qualify as "designated collision
points" and I see no reason to detour and fly over one when it's
not necessary.

I also note that DUATS flightplanner direct routing for GPS/RNAV
makes the above stone-simple because it spits out a list of such
waypoints along one's route of flight.

3) put some comment about a major, recognizeable waypoint
into your remarks section. ie if I'm flying from s. FL to our new
homebase airport, it's a cinch that the Miami Center computer won't
have a clue where 1H0 is, but if I put "remarks 1H0 7 SW KSTL"
hopefully everyone in the ATC system now grasps which way
I'm intending to fly. If the lat-long has me flying in the opposite
direction, there's clearly a mistake.

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".

So it seems to me that the lat-long vs. a VOR-radial-distance
waypoint becomes an issue only if you have NOT included some
waypoint within the airspace of each facility along the way.
And that's a no-no, both in terms of the AIM's instructions
for filing direct and in terms of filing in a manner ATC can
deal with easily.

Perhaps I'm just dense here, but we file GPS direct to obscure
airports (along with the pound of flesh nearest Don Brown's
heart, I assume, sorry :( ) all the time. We just make sure to
include at least one VOR degree-distance waypoint for each facility
we cross, lately we've also taken to including a remark about
our destination vs. a major airport if that's possible. We've
never had anyone request a lat-long from us.

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.

Best,
Sydney

Bob Gardner
September 19th 03, 07:02 PM
Well, Chip, that is easily remedied. A west coast controller who flies a Baron in the low altitude structure recommends designating a major VOR along the route in the correct direction to obviate that kind of confusion. Beyond that, he is in the lat-long camp.

Bob Gardner

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message hlink.net...
Oh the shame! :-)

One of Don's problems with L/L's is that by themselves they don't tell the controller diddly about which direction you will be headed. They are just a jumble of numbers on a flight progress strip to a busy ATCS. Secondly, because they don't tell the controller diddly about which direction you will be headed, the controller has no way of verifying that they are correctly filed by you, DUATS or FSS until after you get radar identified. One digit of mistake on the filer's part can cause mountians of headaches for ATC with both IFR separation requirements and just plain old inter-ATC coordination fumbles. And speaking of radar identified, what happens if you *don't* get radar identified...?

File Lat/ longs at your pleasure, but don't be surprised at the results. Down here in ATC-land, we'll probably be surprised for you...

Chip, ZTL
"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message et...
I know Don Brown. He is a good 'ol country boy, and an entertaining writer, but he is not a pilot. His aviation world is circumscribed by the AIM and Air Traffic Control Handbook, with no latitude (no pun intended) allowed. His Avweb column about filing IFR is almost perfect, but there are airplane-owning controllers around the country who will tell you that host computers throughout the system recognize lat-longs, while a radial-distance from a VORTAC several hundred miles away might get bounced because the VORTAC is not in the host computer. Keep filing lat-longs where appropriate even if you never get up to FL390.

Bob Gardner

Bob Gardner
September 19th 03, 07:06 PM
I did not intend that pilots file lat-longs exclusively, just when they need
something far enough away from the departure airport that a radial-distance
might not be in the local host computer. I agree that filing a major VOR in
the initial direction will get things started off on the right foot.

Bob Gardner

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>...
> > I know Don Brown. He is a good 'ol country boy, and an entertaining
> > writer, but he is not a pilot. His aviation world is circumscribed by
> > the AIM and Air Traffic Control Handbook, with no latitude (no pun
> > intended) allowed. His Avweb column about filing IFR is almost perfect,
> > but there are airplane-owning controllers around the country who will
> > tell you that host computers throughout the system recognize lat-longs,
> > while a radial-distance from a VORTAC several hundred miles away might
> > get bounced because the VORTAC is not in the host computer. Keep filing
> > lat-longs where appropriate even if you never get up to FL390.
>
> Bob,
>
> I think two of Don's concerns with lat-longs are:
> 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.
> 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 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
> 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 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. I object to the letter of the AIM because
> AFAIK VORs near busy airports qualify as "designated collision
> points" and I see no reason to detour and fly over one when it's
> not necessary.
>
> I also note that DUATS flightplanner direct routing for GPS/RNAV
> makes the above stone-simple because it spits out a list of such
> waypoints along one's route of flight.
>
> 3) put some comment about a major, recognizeable waypoint
> into your remarks section. ie if I'm flying from s. FL to our new
> homebase airport, it's a cinch that the Miami Center computer won't
> have a clue where 1H0 is, but if I put "remarks 1H0 7 SW KSTL"
> hopefully everyone in the ATC system now grasps which way
> I'm intending to fly. If the lat-long has me flying in the opposite
> direction, there's clearly a mistake.
>
> 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".
>
> So it seems to me that the lat-long vs. a VOR-radial-distance
> waypoint becomes an issue only if you have NOT included some
> waypoint within the airspace of each facility along the way.
> And that's a no-no, both in terms of the AIM's instructions
> for filing direct and in terms of filing in a manner ATC can
> deal with easily.
>
> Perhaps I'm just dense here, but we file GPS direct to obscure
> airports (along with the pound of flesh nearest Don Brown's
> heart, I assume, sorry :( ) all the time. We just make sure to
> include at least one VOR degree-distance waypoint for each facility
> we cross, lately we've also taken to including a remark about
> our destination vs. a major airport if that's possible. We've
> never had anyone request a lat-long from us.
>
> 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.
>
> Best,
> Sydney

Snowbird
September 20th 03, 03:28 AM
"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

Snowbird
September 20th 03, 03:29 AM
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...

> The problem with navaid radial/distance is that it relies on the navaid
> location being known to the flight data processing computer. If the
> computer doesn't recognize the base fix it won't process it.

Steve,

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?

Thanks
Sydney

Stan Gosnell
September 20th 03, 05:46 AM
(Snowbird) wrote in
m:

> I don't understand the necessity of filing a lat-long in
> any circumstance.

Well, down here in the Gulf of Mexico, that's about the only way
to do it. We file to/from a lat/lon, & in the remarks put the
offshore block number. Those numbers are not in any particular
order, because they were created by the guv'mint as new blocks
became necessary when oil companies wanted to drill in new
places. They're a confusing mess, and nobody knows where blocks
are precisely without looking closely at a map. But we do have
to go to and from them IFR. The solution is lat/lon. ATC may
still not know our exact (or even approximate) direction of
flight, but a quick query will get it from us. There may be
more reasons for using coordinates onshore. The IFR world is
not entirely defined by Cessna 172's flying from airport to
airport.

--
Regards,

Stan

Stan Gosnell
September 20th 03, 05:47 AM
(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> message
> et>.
> ..
>
>> The problem with navaid radial/distance is that it relies
>> on the navaid location being known to the flight data
>> processing computer. If the computer doesn't recognize
>> the base fix it won't process it.
>
> Steve,
>
> 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?

If it doesn't recognize the VOR, it would have to barf on both.

--
Regards,

Stan

John R. Copeland
September 20th 03, 04:20 PM
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

Bob Gardner
September 20th 03, 06:38 PM
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

Chip Jones
September 21st 03, 01:58 AM
"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

Casey Wilson
September 21st 03, 05:00 PM
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.

Doug
September 22nd 03, 01:24 AM
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.

Stan Gosnell
September 22nd 03, 06:44 AM
(Doug) wrote in
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.

You had an inexperienced guy on clearance delivery. That's
where they seem to start out. Controllers who have some
experience seem to have no problems with lat/lon. ZHU certainly
has no problems with it, & HOU approach mostly knows about them,
but you still get a new guy once in awhile.

--
Regards,

Stan

Steven P. McNicoll
September 22nd 03, 07:27 PM
"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"?

Robert Henry
September 23rd 03, 01:16 AM
"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. ;)

Snowbird
September 23rd 03, 07:18 PM
"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

paul k. sanchez
September 24th 03, 04:31 AM
>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

Dave Butler
September 24th 03, 08:59 PM
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

paul k. sanchez
September 24th 03, 09:46 PM
>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

Steven P. McNicoll
September 26th 03, 02:34 AM
"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I think two of Don's concerns with lat-longs are:
> 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.

Steven P. McNicoll
September 26th 03, 02:39 AM
"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.

Steven P. McNicoll
September 26th 03, 02:42 AM
"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.

Steven P. McNicoll
September 26th 03, 02:43 AM
"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.

Newps
September 26th 03, 03:45 AM
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>I think two of Don's concerns with lat-longs are:
>>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.

Fred E. Pate
September 28th 03, 05:30 AM
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.

Steven P. McNicoll
September 28th 03, 03:54 PM
"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.

Snowbird
September 29th 03, 03:24 AM
Dave Butler > wrote in message >...
> 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?

> ... and then paul k sanchez said:
> <snip>
> > Here is the route that we file about 1 x week every monday morning.
> > Flight Plan FXE - LBE
> > ARKES PHK J53 CRG SSI090004 SVN270003 EDS270002 MMT CTF270019 CLT090020
> > GSO270019 PSK120028 ROA270001 LWB120020 EKN120018 MGW120013 IHD300006
<....>
> 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

Dave,

Exactly -- I was asking for an example of what Casey said he
saw, DUATS converting a VOR radial-distance to lat-long as
part of a flight plan.

We use DUATS to file GPS direct flight plans all the time.
The sort of thing Paul posted is very familiar, though I
wouldn't file it exactly as DUATS spits it out, because
one doesn't typically need that many waypoints to adequately
define the route and if a partial rerouting is necessary it's
a PITA for ATC to have to read all those VOR radial distances.
1 or 2 per center will suffice.

Anyway, point is: while it's true DUATS flight planner will
*add* lat-longs to the VOR-radial distance output, I've never
seen a DUATS flight plan which was submitted as some combination
of VOR radial-distance and other waypoints, converted into lat-long
before being filed.

> 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.

Exactly.

I wouldn't even say they're "converted", they're just "added"; the
VOR radial/distances are still there.

Cheers,
Sydney (still trying to figure out where I need to file lat-longs,
outside the Gulf of Mexico grid.....)

Google