Flying Thru Congested Areas

[O. Sami Saydjari]

I am planning a long cross country where I am trying to minmiize the
time the trip will take (while, of course, trying to be as safe as
possible). The shortest route would take me straight over the top of
Detroit and Clevland and Pittsburg (I am flying from Central Wisconsin
to Washington D.C. to be specific). Perhaps this is a no brainer, but
that does not sound like a particularly good route to me, just because
of the congrestion in these spaces. The congestion (a) increases the
likelihood of vectoring delays, and (b) decreases my safety somewhat
because the probability of a collision is somewhat higher (although,
still quite small, I realize).

If I pick a route to the south, I could avoid all of these areas by
about 30 miles, but it adds about 60-70 miles to my trip. Even at 30
miles south, I imagine the congestion will be significant. In fact, a
controller once implied that it is often better to go straight across
the top of a major airport because there are fewer airplanes in
transition there (descending for approach, or climbing for departure).

So, what do you folks suggest? Thanks in advance for you advice.

-Sami
N2057M
Piper Turbo Arrow III

[Jeff]

Hey Sami
If you fly above the class B of those areas (10,000 ft) then you dont have
any problems, I do this when ever I fly to the other side of phoenix,
reason is they always vector me way around their class B, so I got into
the habit of just flying over their class B VFR. Just when your near their
airspace, you call approach and let them know who you are and where your
going so that they know and can advise you of traffic conflicts.
If your IFR then they can vector you around, if your VFR then they wont
vector you, they will vector the IFR traffic around you. Another thing I
got used to doing when flying around the phoenix area, I found oout they
like to send me way down south then turn me up. I dont fly IFR into
phoenix anymore unless I really have to.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> I am planning a long cross country where I am trying to minmiize the
> time the trip will take (while, of course, trying to be as safe as
> possible). The shortest route would take me straight over the top of
> Detroit and Clevland and Pittsburg (I am flying from Central Wisconsin
> to Washington D.C. to be specific). Perhaps this is a no brainer, but
> that does not sound like a particularly good route to me, just because
> of the congrestion in these spaces. The congestion (a) increases the
> likelihood of vectoring delays, and (b) decreases my safety somewhat
> because the probability of a collision is somewhat higher (although,
> still quite small, I realize).
>
> If I pick a route to the south, I could avoid all of these areas by
> about 30 miles, but it adds about 60-70 miles to my trip. Even at 30
> miles south, I imagine the congestion will be significant. In fact, a
> controller once implied that it is often better to go straight across
> the top of a major airport because there are fewer airplanes in
> transition there (descending for approach, or climbing for departure).
>
> So, what do you folks suggest? Thanks in advance for you advice.
>
> -Sami
> N2057M
> Piper Turbo Arrow III

[[email protected]]

Jeff > wrote:
: Hey Sami
: If you fly above the class B of those areas (10,000 ft) then you dont have
: any problems, I do this when ever I fly to the other side of phoenix,
: reason is they always vector me way around their class B, so I got into
: the habit of just flying over their class B VFR. Just when your near their
: airspace, you call approach and let them know who you are and where your
: going so that they know and can advise you of traffic conflicts.
: If your IFR then they can vector you around, if your VFR then they wont
: vector you, they will vector the IFR traffic around you. Another thing I
: got used to doing when flying around the phoenix area, I found oout they
: like to send me way down south then turn me up. I dont fly IFR into
: phoenix anymore unless I really have to.

I had that decision a few weeks ago flying from Milwaukee to SW Virginia.
Flying around Chicago is great if VFR (2000' or lower right along the lakeshore). I
ended up "scud running" (MVFR 1500' AGL SCT OVC) along the lake/downtown until though
the Bravo. Then I got a clearance and climbed to more favorable winds. The time before
I had to file IFR, and they vectored me halfway to Iowa (Rockford, IL) to keep me out
of the Class B. Since I won't fly over the lake in my Cherokee, that was the only
option.

I would imagine that if you go IFR, it could be similar around the big places.
VFR you can get up on top and tell 'em to get bent.... :)

YMMV
-Cory

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

[Maule Driver]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > The shortest route would take
me straight over the top of
> Detroit and Clevland and Pittsburg (I am flying from Central Wisconsin
> to Washington D.C. to be specific).
I'm not familiar with this route but did you do a great circle route *and*
plot the actual great circle route on the chart to determine the
'conflicts'? I assume you are using a GPS to fly and it will follow the
great circle route using direct routing but it is not always obvious what
that line looks like on the chart unless you plot a few points. A fuel or
rest stop can change the entire equation once fuel prices are factored in.
> Perhaps this is a no brainer, but
> that does not sound like a particularly good route to me, just because
> of the congrestion in these spaces. The congestion (a) increases the
> likelihood of vectoring delays, and (b) decreases my safety somewhat
> because the probability of a collision is somewhat higher (although,
> still quite small, I realize).
The big question here is IFR or VFR. IFR you take your chances with regard
to routing. You can influence it but not control it. OTOH, you get more
help in reducing the probablility of a collision. Depending on weather, IFR
may be the only way or the optimal way depending on the weather. Or VFR may
be the way to stay out of the weather. If weather offers a choice, I find
IFR often easier on such flights because of the help in airspace management
(TFRs, Restricted, etc) and I prefer to fly at IFR altitudes with maximum
ATC involvement.
> If I pick a route to the south, I could avoid all of these areas by
> about 30 miles, but it adds about 60-70 miles to my trip. Even at 30
> miles south, I imagine the congestion will be significant. In fact, a
> controller once implied that it is often better to go straight across
> the top of a major airport because there are fewer airplanes in
> transition there (descending for approach, or climbing for departure).
>
> So, what do you folks suggest? Thanks in advance for you advice.

If you are IFR capable, planning a VFR flight, but without a lot of
experience flying such flights, fly IFR and use it as a learn-the-system
experience. That's the only way to really figure out the best way to do
such a flight in the future

[Ron Natalie]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> Hey Sami
> If you fly above the class B of those areas (10,000 ft) then you dont have
> any problems, I do this when ever I fly to the other side of phoenix,
> reason is they always vector me way around their class B, so I got into
> the habit of just flying over their class B VFR.

VFR in the NE I just plan a straight line route and get flight following all
the way up. While I get wiggled around a little bit (my flight path would
take me through PHL and EWR's approach path at a rather shallow angle,
they turn me parallel to the runways for a few miles and then back on
course). As a matter of fact before the *&#@$! Secret Service screwed
up the DC airspace, I could count on direct over the top of BWI and ADW
(to my home field which is just about 6 miles from ADW).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you fly above the class B of those areas (10,000 ft) then you dont have
> any problems, I do this when ever I fly to the other side of phoenix,
> reason is they always vector me way around their class B, so I got into
> the habit of just flying over their class B VFR. Just when your near their
> airspace, you call approach and let them know who you are and where your
> going so that they know and can advise you of traffic conflicts.
> If your IFR then they can vector you around, if your VFR then they wont
> vector you, they will vector the IFR traffic around you.
>

Vector IFR around VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace above the Class B? I
think not.

[Jeff]

you have never been vectored around VFR traffic before?
Happens to me everytime I file IFR.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> Vector IFR around VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace above the Class B? I
> think not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>
> you have never been vectored around VFR traffic before?
> Happens to me everytime I file IFR.
>

That's fine, as long as it's in airspace in which ATC has the responsibility
to separate VFR aircraft from IFR aircraft and thus the authority to
initiate vectors for separation. But we're not talking about such airspace.
Of course, an aircraft can always request such vectors.

[O. Sami Saydjari]

>>Detroit and Clevland and Pittsburg (I am flying from Central Wisconsin
>>to Washington D.C. to be specific).
>
> I'm not familiar with this route but did you do a great circle route *and*
> plot the actual great circle route on the chart to determine the
> 'conflicts'? I assume you are using a GPS to fly and it will follow the
> great circle route using direct routing but it is not always obvious what
> that line looks like on the chart unless you plot a few points. A fuel or
> rest stop can change the entire equation once fuel prices are factored in.
>

Well, I used the route planning software available at the duats website.
I picked the low-level victor airway that it recommended....and thats
the one that had the conflicts. How does one directly find the great
circle route during flight planning (I assume my GPS uses great cricle
when it does a direct-to course)? I figured I would be better off on
victor airways as a matter of extra safety, in case my GPS fails...but I
am open to be talked out of that viewpoint.

[O. Sami Saydjari]

So, would it be poor form to get an ifr clearance to get above whatever
cloud layer at your departure airport....fly VFR when you are on
top....then pickup an on-the-fly IFR again 100 miles or so before your
destinatation airport if you needed to descend back down through a cloud
layer? I am not saying this is a particularly good idea, or
particularly "polite"...I am just asking a question here.


-Sami

wrote:
> Jeff > wrote:
> : Hey Sami
> : If you fly above the class B of those areas (10,000 ft) then you dont have
> : any problems, I do this when ever I fly to the other side of phoenix,
> : reason is they always vector me way around their class B, so I got into
> : the habit of just flying over their class B VFR. Just when your near their
> : airspace, you call approach and let them know who you are and where your
> : going so that they know and can advise you of traffic conflicts.
> : If your IFR then they can vector you around, if your VFR then they wont
> : vector you, they will vector the IFR traffic around you. Another thing I
> : got used to doing when flying around the phoenix area, I found oout they
> : like to send me way down south then turn me up. I dont fly IFR into
> : phoenix anymore unless I really have to.
>
> I had that decision a few weeks ago flying from Milwaukee to SW Virginia.
> Flying around Chicago is great if VFR (2000' or lower right along the lakeshore). I
> ended up "scud running" (MVFR 1500' AGL SCT OVC) along the lake/downtown until though
> the Bravo. Then I got a clearance and climbed to more favorable winds. The time before
> I had to file IFR, and they vectored me halfway to Iowa (Rockford, IL) to keep me out
> of the Class B. Since I won't fly over the lake in my Cherokee, that was the only
> option.
>
> I would imagine that if you go IFR, it could be similar around the big places.
> VFR you can get up on top and tell 'em to get bent.... :)
>
> YMMV
> -Cory
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Jeff, Good advice, thanks. But I am curious about your experience that
you do not get vectored when you are VFR. If I ask for flight following
from center (or approach), I believe I have experienced being vectored
even though I was VFR. Perhaps I recall incorrectly. I wonder if a
controller-type person can enlighten us on the rules about vectoring VFR
traffic under flight following.

-Sami

Jeff wrote:
> Hey Sami
> If you fly above the class B of those areas (10,000 ft) then you dont have
> any problems, I do this when ever I fly to the other side of phoenix,
> reason is they always vector me way around their class B, so I got into
> the habit of just flying over their class B VFR. Just when your near their
> airspace, you call approach and let them know who you are and where your
> going so that they know and can advise you of traffic conflicts.
> If your IFR then they can vector you around, if your VFR then they wont
> vector you, they will vector the IFR traffic around you. Another thing I
> got used to doing when flying around the phoenix area, I found oout they
> like to send me way down south then turn me up. I dont fly IFR into
> phoenix anymore unless I really have to.
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
>
>
>>I am planning a long cross country where I am trying to minmiize the
>>time the trip will take (while, of course, trying to be as safe as
>>possible). The shortest route would take me straight over the top of
>>Detroit and Clevland and Pittsburg (I am flying from Central Wisconsin
>>to Washington D.C. to be specific). Perhaps this is a no brainer, but
>>that does not sound like a particularly good route to me, just because
>>of the congrestion in these spaces. The congestion (a) increases the
>>likelihood of vectoring delays, and (b) decreases my safety somewhat
>>because the probability of a collision is somewhat higher (although,
>>still quite small, I realize).
>>
>>If I pick a route to the south, I could avoid all of these areas by
>>about 30 miles, but it adds about 60-70 miles to my trip. Even at 30
>>miles south, I imagine the congestion will be significant. In fact, a
>>controller once implied that it is often better to go straight across
>>the top of a major airport because there are fewer airplanes in
>>transition there (descending for approach, or climbing for departure).
>>
>>So, what do you folks suggest? Thanks in advance for you advice.
>>
>>-Sami
>>N2057M
>>Piper Turbo Arrow III
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, would it be poor form to get an ifr clearance to get above whatever
> cloud layer at your departure airport....fly VFR when you are on
> top....then pickup an on-the-fly IFR again 100 miles or so before your
> destinatation airport if you needed to descend back down through a cloud
> layer?
>

It's poor form if you don't file the flight plans before requesting the IFR
clearances, otherwise no problem.

[Ron Natalie]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message ...
> Jeff, Good advice, thanks. But I am curious about your experience that
> you do not get vectored when you are VFR.

If you're inside a class B, you can get vectored. Outside, it's not supposed
to be one of their options.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>
> But I am curious about your experience that
> you do not get vectored when you are VFR. If I ask for flight following
> from center (or approach), I believe I have experienced being vectored
> even though I was VFR. Perhaps I recall incorrectly. I wonder if a
> controller-type person can enlighten us on the rules about vectoring VFR
> traffic under flight following.
>

ATC separates VFR aircraft in Class B and Class C airspace, in the outer
area associated with Class C airspace, and in TRSAs. In those areas it is
entirely proper for ATC to vector VFR aircraft. Outside of that airspace
VFR aircraft are vectored only by request.

[John Clonts]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So, would it be poor form to get an ifr clearance to get above whatever
> > cloud layer at your departure airport....fly VFR when you are on
> > top....then pickup an on-the-fly IFR again 100 miles or so before your
> > destinatation airport if you needed to descend back down through a cloud
> > layer?
> >
>
> It's poor form if you don't file the flight plans before requesting the
IFR
> clearances, otherwise no problem.
>
>

He would need two flight plans for this, right? One to get up, one to get
back down.

If instead, he requested VFR-on-top, do you think he could generally get
the routing he wanted? I mean what would ATC generally do with a request
like "N123 request VFR-on-top 7500 direct XYZ VOR, otherwise I'd like to
cancel IFR and request VFR advisories".

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Maule Driver]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > > >
> > I'm not familiar with this route but did you do a great circle route
*and*
> > plot the actual great circle route on the chart to determine the
> > 'conflicts'? I assume you are using a GPS to fly and it will follow the
> > great circle route using direct routing but it is not always obvious
what
> > that line looks like on the chart unless you plot a few points. A fuel
or
> > rest stop can change the entire equation once fuel prices are factored
in.
> >
> Well, I used the route planning software available at the duats website.
> I picked the low-level victor airway that it recommended....and thats
> the one that had the conflicts. How does one directly find the great
> circle route during flight planning (I assume my GPS uses great cricle
> when it does a direct-to course)? I figured I would be better off on
> victor airways as a matter of extra safety, in case my GPS fails...but I
> am open to be talked out of that viewpoint.
>
I use the AOPA flight planner and I'm not sure what engine it uses for
determining routes. Might be DUATS. In any case, I can select GPS direct
routing which makes a great circle route (or something close) or I can
select low level victor airway routing. If you are using a GPS for
navigation, there's little reason to take the victor routing unless ATC
'demands' it as they tend to do around the Wash DC area for example. I
assume your duats flight planner will plan a direct route and supply
waypoints that can be plotted so that you can see what it looks like on a
chart.

Map projections do not result in the shortest real distance between 2 points
being a straight line on the chart. Sometimes the difference is enough to
be surprising. For example, when I fly to Florida from the Raleigh area, I
have to fly around a sizeable restricted area near Fayetteville. The map
tells me to fly east of the area. A more careful examination of the great
circle route tells me to fly west. The difference is not that great but it
causes me to choose a different refueling stop for my slow, short legged
bird.

[Jeff]

I have been out in the middle of no where several times on IFR flight plans and
been told to "traffic at your XX O'clock, not talking to him, turn xxx degrees."

Also been given vectors way the hell away from my flight path and was even asked
if I could climb to 14,000 ft to avoid VFR traffic that was passing through a
pass.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > you have never been vectored around VFR traffic before?
> > Happens to me everytime I file IFR.
> >
>
> That's fine, as long as it's in airspace in which ATC has the responsibility
> to separate VFR aircraft from IFR aircraft and thus the authority to
> initiate vectors for separation. But we're not talking about such airspace.
> Of course, an aircraft can always request such vectors.

[Jeff]

When I go VFR, I dont get vectored like on an IFR flight plan, but I do get
traffic advisories. thats why your able to just fly over the class B, because
they cant tell you to turn somewhere else like they can if your IFR. Its good to
talk to approach when your flying over their airspace tho just so they can talk
to you if they need to.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> Jeff, Good advice, thanks. But I am curious about your experience that
> you do not get vectored when you are VFR. If I ask for flight following
> from center (or approach), I believe I have experienced being vectored
> even though I was VFR. Perhaps I recall incorrectly. I wonder if a
> controller-type person can enlighten us on the rules about vectoring VFR
> traffic under flight following.
>
> -Sami
>
> Jeff wrote:
> > Hey Sami
> > If you fly above the class B of those areas (10,000 ft) then you dont have
> > any problems, I do this when ever I fly to the other side of phoenix,
> > reason is they always vector me way around their class B, so I got into
> > the habit of just flying over their class B VFR. Just when your near their
> > airspace, you call approach and let them know who you are and where your
> > going so that they know and can advise you of traffic conflicts.
> > If your IFR then they can vector you around, if your VFR then they wont
> > vector you, they will vector the IFR traffic around you. Another thing I
> > got used to doing when flying around the phoenix area, I found oout they
> > like to send me way down south then turn me up. I dont fly IFR into
> > phoenix anymore unless I really have to.
> >
> > "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I am planning a long cross country where I am trying to minmiize the
> >>time the trip will take (while, of course, trying to be as safe as
> >>possible). The shortest route would take me straight over the top of
> >>Detroit and Clevland and Pittsburg (I am flying from Central Wisconsin
> >>to Washington D.C. to be specific). Perhaps this is a no brainer, but
> >>that does not sound like a particularly good route to me, just because
> >>of the congrestion in these spaces. The congestion (a) increases the
> >>likelihood of vectoring delays, and (b) decreases my safety somewhat
> >>because the probability of a collision is somewhat higher (although,
> >>still quite small, I realize).
> >>
> >>If I pick a route to the south, I could avoid all of these areas by
> >>about 30 miles, but it adds about 60-70 miles to my trip. Even at 30
> >>miles south, I imagine the congestion will be significant. In fact, a
> >>controller once implied that it is often better to go straight across
> >>the top of a major airport because there are fewer airplanes in
> >>transition there (descending for approach, or climbing for departure).
> >>
> >>So, what do you folks suggest? Thanks in advance for you advice.
> >>
> >>-Sami
> >>N2057M
> >>Piper Turbo Arrow III
> >
> >

[Jeff]

right, you wont get vectors but you will get traffic advisories and its up to
you to make sure you dont hit anything.
Of course you can also say "negative contact, request vectors around traffic"
when you get an advisory that may be conflicting with your path.

but in general, jump up above the class B and set a direct course to where
your going - just watch out for any restricted areas - for those you can ask
center if its active.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:ATC separates VFR aircraft in Class B and Class C
airspace, in the outer

> area associated with Class C airspace, and in TRSAs. In those areas it is
> entirely proper for ATC to vector VFR aircraft. Outside of that airspace
> VFR aircraft are vectored only by request.

[Colin Kingsbury]

Every so often in the Boston area when I'm flight following with approach
control in class E they'll throw a vector my way, then a minute or two later
say "resume own navigation." Happens maybe one in ten flights. I've always
igured it's just good manners to comply without asking why so long as it
doesn't put you somewhere you don't want to be.

-cwk.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > But I am curious about your experience that
> > you do not get vectored when you are VFR. If I ask for flight following
> > from center (or approach), I believe I have experienced being vectored
> > even though I was VFR. Perhaps I recall incorrectly. I wonder if a
> > controller-type person can enlighten us on the rules about vectoring VFR
> > traffic under flight following.
> >
>
> ATC separates VFR aircraft in Class B and Class C airspace, in the outer
> area associated with Class C airspace, and in TRSAs. In those areas it is
> entirely proper for ATC to vector VFR aircraft. Outside of that airspace
> VFR aircraft are vectored only by request.
>
>

[Jeff]

I use duats also to get a general idea of time and winds aloft and to pick my
best altitude. I always select the user selected way points so I can do a
direct. Their direct uses waypoints, I dont care much about way points. When I
file I call FSS. If I am going to be in IMC I will use the airways, if not, then
I go direct.

If your not familiar with the area, and you expect bad weather, I would use the
airways. If the weather was good and I wanted to cut time, I would go direct or
a combination of the two, depending on weather and terrain.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:\Well, I used the route planning software available at
the duats website.

> I picked the low-level victor airway that it recommended....and thats
> the one that had the conflicts. How does one directly find the great
> circle route during flight planning (I assume my GPS uses great cricle
> when it does a direct-to course)? I figured I would be better off on
> victor airways as a matter of extra safety, in case my GPS fails...but I
> am open to be talked out of that viewpoint.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Every so often in the Boston area when I'm flight following with approach
> control in class E they'll throw a vector my way, then a minute or two
later
> say "resume own navigation."
>

They are wrong to do so.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have been out in the middle of no where several times on IFR flight
plans and
> been told to "traffic at your XX O'clock, not talking to him, turn xxx
degrees."
>
> Also been given vectors way the hell away from my flight path and was even
asked
> if I could climb to 14,000 ft to avoid VFR traffic that was passing
through a
> pass.
>

Controller error.

[Martin Kosina]

> So, would it be poor form to get an ifr clearance to get above whatever
> cloud layer at your departure airport....fly VFR when you are on
> top....then pickup an on-the-fly IFR again 100 miles or so before your
> destinatation airport if you needed to descend back down through a cloud
> layer? I am not saying this is a particularly good idea, or
> particularly "polite"...I am just asking a question here.

No need to cancel that IFR when you get on top, just ask for
VFR-on-top ! ATC likes it (reduced separation req.), you get to stay
out of ice and go direct, all while maintaining your IFR status when
you need to descend at your destination. No begging for popups, just
advise you won't be able to maintain VFR and ask for a hard altitude.
One of the truly practical procedures out there !

BTW, does anyone know if VFR OT exists in Canada, I know VFR
over-the-top (i.e. just VFR above clouds) isn't permitted.

Martin

[John Clonts]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> I use duats also to get a general idea of time and winds aloft and to pick
my
> best altitude. I always select the user selected way points so I can do a
> direct. Their direct uses waypoints, I dont care much about way points.
When I
> file I call FSS. If I am going to be in IMC I will use the airways, if
not, then
> I go direct.
>
> If your not familiar with the area, and you expect bad weather, I would
use the
> airways. If the weather was good and I wanted to cut time, I would go
direct or
> a combination of the two, depending on weather and terrain.

Why does the weather affect whether you go direct?

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Ross]

VFR OTT (Over The Top) is allowed in Canada. It's just an extra rating that
can be added on to the PPL with 15 hours instrument time. It can only be
used if you are able to climb to altitude and descend at destination whilst
maintaining VFR. At altitude you have to maintain a certain distance from
the cloud layers. Flight following is not mandatory (but highly
recommended!).

Ross
"Martin Kosina" > wrote in message
om...
> > So, would it be poor form to get an ifr clearance to get above whatever
> > cloud layer at your departure airport....fly VFR when you are on
> > top....then pickup an on-the-fly IFR again 100 miles or so before your
> > destinatation airport if you needed to descend back down through a cloud
> > layer? I am not saying this is a particularly good idea, or
> > particularly "polite"...I am just asking a question here.
>
> No need to cancel that IFR when you get on top, just ask for
> VFR-on-top ! ATC likes it (reduced separation req.), you get to stay
> out of ice and go direct, all while maintaining your IFR status when
> you need to descend at your destination. No begging for popups, just
> advise you won't be able to maintain VFR and ask for a hard altitude.
> One of the truly practical procedures out there !
>
> BTW, does anyone know if VFR OT exists in Canada, I know VFR
> over-the-top (i.e. just VFR above clouds) isn't permitted.
>
> Martin

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> He would need two flight plans for this, right? One to get up, one to get
> back down.
>

Yup.


>
> If instead, he requested VFR-on-top, do you think he could generally get
> the routing he wanted? I mean what would ATC generally do with a request
> like "N123 request VFR-on-top 7500 direct XYZ VOR, otherwise I'd like to
> cancel IFR and request VFR advisories".
>

Assuming the controller isn't baffled by the request, and he's not heading
somewhere a preferential routing applies, he should be told to climb and
maintain VFR-on-top and report reaching it and also be cleared direct XYZ
VOR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Martin Kosina" > wrote in message
om...
>
> No need to cancel that IFR when you get on top, just ask for
> VFR-on-top ! ATC likes it (reduced separation req.), you get to stay
> out of ice and go direct, all while maintaining your IFR status when
> you need to descend at your destination.
>

VFR-on-top does not affect your route, you'll have to make a separate
request for direct.

[Jeff]

because if its going to be bad I like being on a route flown by other aircraft
just in case something happens.
I live in the desert, If you go down there is not alot of places to land, so if
it has to happen, I want to be where people can easily find me. Plus with all
the mountains I like to follow the charts and the MEA's just to be safe. There
is no guessing when it comes to following the airways, its all laid out for you.
Another benefit is radar coverage, there are places out here where you dont get
radar coverage. You follow the airways, your good to go.

John Clonts wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I use duats also to get a general idea of time and winds aloft and to pick
> my
> > best altitude. I always select the user selected way points so I can do a
> > direct. Their direct uses waypoints, I dont care much about way points.
> When I
> > file I call FSS. If I am going to be in IMC I will use the airways, if
> not, then
> > I go direct.
> >
> > If your not familiar with the area, and you expect bad weather, I would
> use the
> > airways. If the weather was good and I wanted to cut time, I would go
> direct or
> > a combination of the two, depending on weather and terrain.
>
> Why does the weather affect whether you go direct?
>
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ

[Jeff]

you can file a composit flight plan, part IFR and part VFR and do what you mentioned.
the one flight plan will cover your flight.

controllers will work with you if they know what your wanting to do.


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> So, would it be poor form to get an ifr clearance to get above whatever
> cloud layer at your departure airport....fly VFR when you are on
> top....then pickup an on-the-fly IFR again 100 miles or so before your
> destinatation airport if you needed to descend back down through a cloud
> layer? I am not saying this is a particularly good idea, or
> particularly "polite"...I am just asking a question here.
>
> -Sami
>
> wrote:
> > Jeff > wrote:
> > : Hey Sami
> > : If you fly above the class B of those areas (10,000 ft) then you dont have
> > : any problems, I do this when ever I fly to the other side of phoenix,
> > : reason is they always vector me way around their class B, so I got into
> > : the habit of just flying over their class B VFR. Just when your near their
> > : airspace, you call approach and let them know who you are and where your
> > : going so that they know and can advise you of traffic conflicts.
> > : If your IFR then they can vector you around, if your VFR then they wont
> > : vector you, they will vector the IFR traffic around you. Another thing I
> > : got used to doing when flying around the phoenix area, I found oout they
> > : like to send me way down south then turn me up. I dont fly IFR into
> > : phoenix anymore unless I really have to.
> >
> > I had that decision a few weeks ago flying from Milwaukee to SW Virginia.
> > Flying around Chicago is great if VFR (2000' or lower right along the lakeshore). I
> > ended up "scud running" (MVFR 1500' AGL SCT OVC) along the lake/downtown until though
> > the Bravo. Then I got a clearance and climbed to more favorable winds. The time before
> > I had to file IFR, and they vectored me halfway to Iowa (Rockford, IL) to keep me out
> > of the Class B. Since I won't fly over the lake in my Cherokee, that was the only
> > option.
> >
> > I would imagine that if you go IFR, it could be similar around the big places.
> > VFR you can get up on top and tell 'em to get bent.... :)
> >
> > YMMV
> > -Cory
> >

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>
> because if its going to be bad I like being on a route flown by other
aircraft
> just in case something happens.
>

Well, since we are talking about flying through congested areas, I think it
likely there'll be other aircraft on your route.

[Teacherjh]

>>
there are places out here where you dont get
radar coverage. You follow the airways, your good to go.
<<

Not all airways are covered by radar.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Snowbird]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message >...
> So, would it be poor form to get an ifr clearance to get above whatever
> cloud layer at your departure airport....fly VFR when you are on
> top....then pickup an on-the-fly IFR again 100 miles or so before your
> destinatation airport if you needed to descend back down through a cloud
> layer? I am not saying this is a particularly good idea, or
> particularly "polite"...I am just asking a question here.

Sami,

As long as you file the IFR flight plans with flight service
before requesting 'em, it's no problem at all nor is it
impolite AFAIK -- it's your right to use the system as
best suits you.

Another alternative can be to request the IFR clearance
"VFR on top" once you're above the clouds at your departure
airport. This keeps you in the IFR system but, since ATC
no longer has to separate you, they may be able to allow
more direct routing.

We used to fly from the midwest to Buffalo NY regularly.
Direct routing is right through the Cleveland Class B and
IFR would result in the wide-around to the south. We used
both the above techniques. In general my pref. would be
try VFR-on-top first, cancel if I can't get direct routing
I want. One time after we canceled IFR I flew into an
unforecast cloud layer. It wasn't a big deal but it would
have been easier and more straightforward to just say
"unable to maintain VFR-on-top, request IFR altitude" than
to have to file and obtain a new IFR clearance.

FWIW,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message >...
> Well, I used the route planning software available at the duats website.
> I picked the low-level victor airway that it recommended....and thats
> the one that had the conflicts.

Sami,

While I use DUATS once my route is planned, the victor routing
options of Flight Planner aren't always the best airway routing.
They may send you to VORs or intersections which add miles to
your trip or keep you on airways when a direct VOR segment or
two would shorten it.

To get great circle routing which is easy to put on a chart
out of DUATS, select the "direct routing for GPS/Loran".

I recommend purchasing a "low altitude enroute planning chart"
(or something like that) from your favorite chart shop. You
can sanity check any routing and easily see where picking a
fuel stop a bit off to the west would add little but steer
you clear, or where going direct between VORs would make a
shorter route. It's also a great aid for any replanning
which might be necessary enroute due to weather.

In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
trip and makes filing flight plans easier.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Craig Prouse]

In article >,
Jeff > wrote:

> I live in the desert, If you go down there is not alot of places to land

I fly frequently to (for example) Laughlin, Lancaster WJF, and Palm
Springs. Also been to Tucson on occasion. Where out there in the
desert is NOT a place to land? It looks just like the pictures I've
been seeing from Mars.

Jeff, you ought to get in on the 2004 Hayward Air Race. The 2004 entry
packet just came out.

http://www.hwdairrace.org/

[O. Sami Saydjari]

>
> To get great circle routing which is easy to put on a chart
> out of DUATS, select the "direct routing for GPS/Loran".

Must have missed this option. Thanks.

>
> I recommend purchasing a "low altitude enroute planning chart"
> (or something like that) from your favorite chart shop.

Great idea.

>
> In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
> airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
> direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
> trip and makes filing flight plans easier.
>

It makes filing flight plans easier than what? vivtor airway routes?

Seems a direct file is the easiest. I assume I can just file my route
as "KISW direct KHEF" (Wisconsin Rapids, WI to Manassas, VA).

[Jeff]

do you think so


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > because if its going to be bad I like being on a route flown by other
> aircraft
> > just in case something happens.
> >
>
> Well, since we are talking about flying through congested areas, I think it
> likely there'll be other aircraft on your route.

[Jeff]

there is very few areas around there to land.
If its not a road or a dry lake bed, chances are its not going to be place to
land.
The desert here is nowhere near flat or smooth.


Craig Prouse wrote:

> In article >,
> Jeff > wrote:
>
> > I live in the desert, If you go down there is not alot of places to land
>
> I fly frequently to (for example) Laughlin, Lancaster WJF, and Palm
> Springs. Also been to Tucson on occasion. Where out there in the
> desert is NOT a place to land? It looks just like the pictures I've
> been seeing from Mars.
>
> Jeff, you ought to get in on the 2004 Hayward Air Race. The 2004 entry
> packet just came out.
>
> http://www.hwdairrace.org/

[Jeff]

that race looks like it would be kinda fun, anyone here ever enter these?


Craig Prouse wrote:

> In article >,
> Jeff > wrote:
> Jeff, you ought to get in on the 2004 Hayward Air Race. The 2004 entry
> packet just came out.
>
> http://www.hwdairrace.org/

[Jeff]

correct but you can also get into all the other little tidbits - but in
general

Teacherjh wrote:

> >>
> there are places out here where you dont get
> radar coverage. You follow the airways, your good to go.
> <<
>
> Not all airways are covered by radar.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jeff]

Sami
what you can do for long flights is if you dont have it, and since your
getting the 430 anyways you may want it, go to
http://www.garmin.com/products/gns430/
and download the simulator for the 430
you can put in your route direct, see how it looks and amend it from there
then put it in duats for wind, time and fuel consumption.

Its a good program to have and mess with so you can get familiar with the
430 anyways.
I have a garmin handheld 295, I do my route on it, then put it in duats,
then when I get to my plane I put the route from the 295 into my 430.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> >
> > To get great circle routing which is easy to put on a chart
> > out of DUATS, select the "direct routing for GPS/Loran".
>
> Must have missed this option. Thanks.
>
> >
> > I recommend purchasing a "low altitude enroute planning chart"
> > (or something like that) from your favorite chart shop.
>
> Great idea.
>
> >
> > In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
> > airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
> > direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
> > trip and makes filing flight plans easier.
> >
>
> It makes filing flight plans easier than what? vivtor airway routes?
>
> Seems a direct file is the easiest. I assume I can just file my route
> as "KISW direct KHEF" (Wisconsin Rapids, WI to Manassas, VA).

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
(Teacherjh) wrote:
> Not all airways are covered by radar.

And you'd be surprised where. It's not just in the middle of nowhere.
Even around New York, there's a couple of spots near the edges of their
coverage where you fall off radar for a while while on airways.

[Wyatt Emmerich]

If you're VFR on top, can ATC vector you?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Every so often in the Boston area when I'm flight following with
approach
> > control in class E they'll throw a vector my way, then a minute or two
> later
> > say "resume own navigation."
> >
>
> They are wrong to do so.
>
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Jeff,

I have already been playing with the 430 simulator to get familiar with
the controls. I never thought of using it for flight planning. Neat
idea! Would would be even cooler is if you could plan your trip on the
simulator, write to one of those small memory sticks, and then stick the
stick intot he Garmin 430 and have it download your plan. Perhaps, the
next generation will do that too.

-Sami

Jeff wrote:
> Sami
> what you can do for long flights is if you dont have it, and since your
> getting the 430 anyways you may want it, go to
> http://www.garmin.com/products/gns430/
> and download the simulator for the 430
> you can put in your route direct, see how it looks and amend it from there
> then put it in duats for wind, time and fuel consumption.
>
> Its a good program to have and mess with so you can get familiar with the
> 430 anyways.
> I have a garmin handheld 295, I do my route on it, then put it in duats,
> then when I get to my plane I put the route from the 295 into my 430.
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
>
>
>>>To get great circle routing which is easy to put on a chart
>>>out of DUATS, select the "direct routing for GPS/Loran".
>>
>>Must have missed this option. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>>I recommend purchasing a "low altitude enroute planning chart"
>>>(or something like that) from your favorite chart shop.
>>
>>Great idea.
>>
>>
>>>In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
>>>airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
>>>direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
>>>trip and makes filing flight plans easier.
>>>
>>
>>It makes filing flight plans easier than what? vivtor airway routes?
>>
>>Seems a direct file is the easiest. I assume I can just file my route
>>as "KISW direct KHEF" (Wisconsin Rapids, WI to Manassas, VA).
>
>

[Snowbird]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message >...

> > In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
> > airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
> > direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
> > trip and makes filing flight plans easier.

> It makes filing flight plans easier than what? vivtor airway routes?

Than filing GPS direct, but having to find ways to define any
detours we need to make or to define our destination if it isn't
in the computers of the ATC facilities along the route of flight.
(in case it wasn't clear, I was talking about filing low altitude
victor airways with some direct VOR segments, not about filing VOR
direct vs victor airways -- often moot point)

I'm also talking about IFR flights here, mostly.

> Seems a direct file is the easiest. I assume I can just file my route
> as "KISW direct KHEF" (Wisconsin Rapids, WI to Manassas, VA).

Sure you can. And given that I think Manassas, VA is a pretty large
airport, and that the midwest ATC computers don't seem to be hurting
as much for waypoint storage, you might even get to leave it at that
(unless of course traffic to Manassas is routinely put on a STAR).

But if you were going from, say, somewhere in Boston Center airspace
to Manassas, VA or to a smaller, more obscure airspace, chances are
excellent the Center computer won't have anything defining your route
and you'll be asked for the lat-longs of your destination or for a
nearby VOR. Sometimes you'll be asked for a VOR or airport defining
your route *inside the airspace of the center you're talking to*. It
ties up frequency and it's a hassle. Then there's the question of
what to do if you lose comms, or (more common) if ATC loses radar
coverage on you.

Perhaps I should reword what I said: in terms of flight planning
and filing the route with flight service, it's easier to say
"Point A direct Point B", but procedurally it seems Victor airways/
VOR routings sometimes work more smoothly in the system and don't add
significant distance to the flight -- so why not? is the attitude
we're developing.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Everett M. Greene]

Craig Prouse > writes:
> Jeff > wrote:
>
> > I live in the desert, If you go down there is not alot of places to land
>
> I fly frequently to (for example) Laughlin, Lancaster WJF, and Palm
> Springs. Also been to Tucson on occasion. Where out there in the
> desert is NOT a place to land? It looks just like the pictures I've
> been seeing from Mars.

Speaking of the pictures from Mars, I was thinking that NASA
could have saved a lot of money by sending someone to Death
Valley and taking a picture there.

[Maule Driver]

"Craig Prouse" > >
> > I live in the desert, If you go down there is not alot of places to land
>
> I fly frequently to (for example) Laughlin, Lancaster WJF, and Palm
> Springs. Also been to Tucson on occasion. Where out there in the
> desert is NOT a place to land? It looks just like the pictures I've
> been seeing from Mars.
>
My western flying has been limited to glider racing out of Minden NV where
there is plenty of desert like terrain to the east. Also West Texas and
Montana.

Nothing I've ever seen anywhere was as unlandable as the 500km circle around
Minden. If it wasn't a road or dry lake bed, you were likely to be totaled
and possibly injured. The absence of agriculture has a lot to do with it.
I've flown around Tucson and saw very little if any landable terrain. If
man hasn't processed it, it's usually unlandable. That sparse desert
vegetation is more than tough.

[Maule Driver]

"Snowbird" >
> But if you were going from, say, somewhere in Boston Center airspace
> to Manassas, VA or to a smaller, more obscure airspace, chances are
> excellent the Center computer won't have anything defining your route
> and you'll be asked for the lat-longs of your destination or for a
> nearby VOR. Sometimes you'll be asked for a VOR or airport defining
> your route *inside the airspace of the center you're talking to*. It
> ties up frequency and it's a hassle. Then there's the question of
> what to do if you lose comms, or (more common) if ATC loses radar
> coverage on you.
>
In my limited experience on the east coast, as long as the destination Lat
and Long are included (the Duats based stuff adds it automatically) the
direct route is generally accepted if I'm flying from something other than a
Class B or C airport with established procedures they like to follow. If
I'm flying to a B or C, I usually get cleared direct, then amended later if
again, they have some established procedures they like to follow - STARs or
undocumented

[Ron Natalie]

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message ...
> If you're VFR on top, can ATC vector you?
>
If you mean the on the IFR "VFR ON TOP" clearance, yes.
If purely VFR, not unless you're inside an airspace where ATC is
required to separate you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you're VFR on top, can ATC vector you?
>

FAA Order 7110.65 does not directly address that situation. It does say
that traffic advisories and safety alerts must be provided, and to apply
merging target
procedures to aircraft operating VFR-on-top. In other words, treat the
aircraft like a VFR operation. It seems logical to conclude then that ATC
can vector VFR-on-top aircraft in the same airspace where they can vector
VFR aircraft.

[Jeff]

Death valley (furnace creek) is a cool place to land, but only in the winter,
its strange to watch your altimiter go below zero

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

> Craig Prouse > writes:
> > Jeff > wrote:
> >
> > > I live in the desert, If you go down there is not alot of places to land
> >
> > I fly frequently to (for example) Laughlin, Lancaster WJF, and Palm
> > Springs. Also been to Tucson on occasion. Where out there in the
> > desert is NOT a place to land? It looks just like the pictures I've
> > been seeing from Mars.
>
> Speaking of the pictures from Mars, I was thinking that NASA
> could have saved a lot of money by sending someone to Death
> Valley and taking a picture there.

[Jeff]

its kind of deceiving from the air, but once you walk around on the ground or
drive it, you can see how rough it really is.
You may walk away from a forced landing in the desert, but your plane wont.

Maule Driver wrote:

> My western flying has been limited to glider racing out of Minden NV where
> there is plenty of desert like terrain to the east. Also West Texas and
> Montana.
>
> Nothing I've ever seen anywhere was as unlandable as the 500km circle around
> Minden. If it wasn't a road or dry lake bed, you were likely to be totaled
> and possibly injured. The absence of agriculture has a lot to do with it.
> I've flown around Tucson and saw very little if any landable terrain. If
> man hasn't processed it, it's usually unlandable. That sparse desert
> vegetation is more than tough.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>
> Death valley (furnace creek) is a cool place to land, but only in the
winter,
> its strange to watch your altimiter go below zero
>

Beats the hell outta watching your thermometer go below zero.

[Jeff]

I dont know why garmin couldnt make something like that possible, there is an
empty slot in the 430 for future options.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I have already been playing with the 430 simulator to get familiar with
> the controls. I never thought of using it for flight planning. Neat
> idea! Would would be even cooler is if you could plan your trip on the
> simulator, write to one of those small memory sticks, and then stick the
> stick intot he Garmin 430 and have it download your plan. Perhaps, the
> next generation will do that too.
>
> -Sami
>
> Jeff wrote:
> > Sami
> > what you can do for long flights is if you dont have it, and since your
> > getting the 430 anyways you may want it, go to
> > http://www.garmin.com/products/gns430/
> > and download the simulator for the 430
> > you can put in your route direct, see how it looks and amend it from there
> > then put it in duats for wind, time and fuel consumption.
> >
> > Its a good program to have and mess with so you can get familiar with the
> > 430 anyways.
> > I have a garmin handheld 295, I do my route on it, then put it in duats,
> > then when I get to my plane I put the route from the 295 into my 430.
> >
> > "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>To get great circle routing which is easy to put on a chart
> >>>out of DUATS, select the "direct routing for GPS/Loran".
> >>
> >>Must have missed this option. Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I recommend purchasing a "low altitude enroute planning chart"
> >>>(or something like that) from your favorite chart shop.
> >>
> >>Great idea.
> >>
> >>
> >>>In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
> >>>airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
> >>>direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
> >>>trip and makes filing flight plans easier.
> >>>
> >>
> >>It makes filing flight plans easier than what? vivtor airway routes?
> >>
> >>Seems a direct file is the easiest. I assume I can just file my route
> >>as "KISW direct KHEF" (Wisconsin Rapids, WI to Manassas, VA).
> >
> >

[Craig Prouse]

In article >,
"Maule Driver" > wrote:

> I've flown around Tucson and saw very little if any landable terrain. If
> man hasn't processed it, it's usually unlandable. That sparse desert
> vegetation is more than tough.

I refer to the classic definition of a "good landing." The airplane
might not fly again, but as for my own skin I'd rather take my chances
with some rocks and scrub compared to the tree-covered mountains in
Oregon and N. California.

Up there, the best option might be to find a clearcut and try to land
amongst the stumps and scrag. That would be about the same hazard as
landing in the desert provided that you can find a clearcut on
relatively level ground and not a hillside.

[Craig Prouse]

In article >,
Jeff > wrote:

>> http://www.hwdairrace.org/

> that race looks like it would be kinda fun,
> anyone here ever enter these?

I've done it twice. It is fun.

I recommend it to you because it would be easy for you, ending up close
to home and all.

[Maule Driver]

"Craig Prouse" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Maule Driver" > wrote:
>
> > I've flown around Tucson and saw very little if any landable terrain.
If
> > man hasn't processed it, it's usually unlandable. That sparse desert
> > vegetation is more than tough.
>
> I refer to the classic definition of a "good landing." The airplane
> might not fly again, but as for my own skin I'd rather take my chances
> with some rocks and scrub compared to the tree-covered mountains in
> Oregon and N. California.
>
No doubt we glider guiders are looking to save the ship too. But rocks and
scrub that stop a wingtip or the nose present a real survivability problem.
I remember looking at the country between Hobbs NM and Carlsbad Caverns.
From high it just looked bumpy. On the ground, say goodbye...

> Up there, the best option might be to find a clearcut and try to land
> amongst the stumps and scrag. That would be about the same hazard as
> landing in the desert provided that you can find a clearcut on
> relatively level ground and not a hillside.

I was with you until you mentioned clearcuts. Clearcuts in the east I
consider unlandable and deadly. Totally random mixture of big debris and
immovable stumps. Deadly. Never seen a western one but I'm just imagining
bigger and more gnarly. I've seen enough eastern tree top 'landings' in
gliders and airplanes to consider that more classically survivable than a
clear cut.

Hmmm, I'm going have to go out and walk a clearcut.

[Martin Kosina]

> VFR OTT (Over The Top) is allowed in Canada. It's just an extra rating that
> can be added on to the PPL with 15 hours instrument time. It can only be
> used if you are able to climb to altitude and descend at destination whilst
> maintaining VFR.

Thanks for the clarification, didn't know that ! (I remember reading
somewhere while back it wasn't allowed, it must have been a VFR-only
pilot). So how about VFR ON-Top (the IFR clearance), is that a valid
procedure in Canada ?

[Snowbird]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message >...
> In my limited experience on the east coast, as long as the destination Lat
> and Long are included (the Duats based stuff adds it automatically) the
> direct route is generally accepted if I'm flying from something other than a
> Class B or C airport with established procedures they like to follow.

'Tis true that Duats adds the lat-long for you. It's only when
filing direct via FSS that the issue comes up when talking to
ATC. Since we typically only file the first leg of an outbound
flight via DUATS, that means the issue comes up a lot.

'Tis also a point that per AIM, one is actually supposed to begin
and end the direct portion of the flight over a ground based
navaid, and include at least one waypoint defining the route
for each ARTCC -- I presume due to the limitations of the ATC
computers.

It still boggles my mind that our "antique" discontinued Palm VIIx
that we bought used for ~$60 can easily accept a database containing
every waypoint in the US but ARTCC computers can't.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Jeff]

I have this urge to try to protect my plane so it can fly again ..I would
probably choose a gear up landing also if I had to ditch in the desert, that
way the tires dont catch the rocks and hopefully not flip the plane. Bu tthis
also assumes I am not over a mountain which are plentiful.
But I think most of the desert would be safer then tree's or tree stumps.

Craig Prouse wrote:

>
>
> I refer to the classic definition of a "good landing." The airplane
> might not fly again, but as for my own skin I'd rather take my chances
> with some rocks and scrub compared to the tree-covered mountains in
> Oregon and N. California.
>
> Up there, the best option might be to find a clearcut and try to land
> amongst the stumps and scrag. That would be about the same hazard as
> landing in the desert provided that you can find a clearcut on
> relatively level ground and not a hillside.

[O. Sami Saydjari]

>
> 'Tis also a point that per AIM, one is actually supposed to begin
> and end the direct portion of the flight over a ground based
> navaid, and include at least one waypoint defining the route
> for each ARTCC -- I presume due to the limitations of the ATC
> computers.
>

I just talked to local FSS (Green Bay), and they say that filing
direct...KISW (Wisconsin Rapids) to KHEF (Manassas, VA) is an acceptable
route. The end points have ground reference NAVAIDs. But, at least
Green Bay does not think I would require intermediate waypoints. I
wonder if the AIM guidance is out of date? Besides, how does one find
out where the limits of the ARTCC's are....look for the scraggly lines
in the Enroute IFR charts? What if your direct flight does not happen
to go through a NAVAID in an ARTCC?

-Sami

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>
> I just talked to local FSS (Green Bay), and they say that filing
> direct...KISW (Wisconsin Rapids) to KHEF (Manassas, VA) is an acceptable
> route.
>

That's true as long as the Minneapolis Center computer has KHEF stored, that
may not be the case.


>
> The end points have ground reference NAVAIDs. But, at least
> Green Bay does not think I would require intermediate waypoints. I
> wonder if the AIM guidance is out of date? Besides, how does one find
> out where the limits of the ARTCC's are....look for the scraggly lines
> in the Enroute IFR charts?
>

Bingo.


>
> What if your direct flight does not happen
> to go through a NAVAID in an ARTCC?
>

All that matters is that each ARTCC computer recognizes the fixes it's asked
to process. It doesn't matter if those fixes are navaids, airports, or
intersections.

[Maule Driver]

"Steven P. McNicoll" <
> That's true as long as the Minneapolis Center computer has KHEF stored,
that
> may not be the case.
>
And if not, if you supply it they will take it, yes?>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
r.com...
>
> And if not, if you supply it they will take it, yes?
>

Yes.

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Jeff >
writes:

>I have this urge to try to protect my plane so it can fly again ..I would
>probably choose a gear up landing also if I had to ditch in the desert, that
>way the tires dont catch the rocks and hopefully not flip the plane. Bu
>tthis
>also assumes I am not over a mountain which are plentiful.
>But I think most of the desert would be safer then tree's or tree stumps.
>

Careful with that Idea that you want to protect the plane to fly again. Much
better to protect you and passengers to fly again. I attended a "How to crash
you plane and survive" lecture some years ago. I remember he said that if you
stop the passanger capsule in 20 ft (or more) the passengers (with sholder
belt) will probably have only minor injuries. So how do you do that? One, the
plane belongs to the insurance company, don't try to save it. Find something
that will hit the wings before the wheels touch the ground. Small trees (not
head on) or bushes, a field of full grown corn, etc. Get the cabin slowed down
by the wings and YOUR chances improve. I'm not sure that I would be smart
enough to do this since the urge to land as normal as possible is intutive but
then surviving is not always intutive (smoking, drinking, couch potatoes,
etc.).

Chuck