VFR GPS

[Hankal]

This is not just for controllers.
Will it help if I file in the remarks "VFR GPS"
I file 172/U
Will I get more direct to commands.
I still fly VOR to VOR but sometimes I am out of range, but still get proceed
direct.
Hank

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Hankal" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is not just for controllers.
> Will it help if I file in the remarks "VFR GPS"
> I file 172/U
> Will I get more direct to commands.
> I still fly VOR to VOR but sometimes I am out of range, but
> still get proceed direct.
>

If you want direct, file direct. If ATC can provide radar monitoring they
can clear you direct regardless what equipment suffix you use.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>
>
> If you want direct, file direct. If ATC can provide radar monitoring they
> can clear you direct regardless what equipment suffix you use.

What if I file direct between two VORs that are 180 miles apart, I am cleared
as filed, then while proceeding between those two VORs, ATC radar goes down?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> What if I file direct between two VORs that are 180 miles apart, I
> am cleared as filed, then while proceeding between those two
> VORs, ATC radar goes down?
>

Then ATC will put you on an appropriate nonradar routing, probably on
airways.

[Donald Ramsey]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
>
>>What if I file direct between two VORs that are 180 miles apart, I
>>am cleared as filed, then while proceeding between those two
>>VORs, ATC radar goes down?
>>
>
>
> Then ATC will put you on an appropriate nonradar routing, probably on
> airways.
>
>

When radar fails, do ATC folks have at their avail the last recorded
positions of all aircraft or a computed projection (coast?), or do
all the screens just go black? :O I don't doubt that most controllers
can revert back to non-radar procedures and successfully handle traffic,
I'm just curious how the transition would occur.

--Don

[Newps]

Donald Ramsey wrote:

> When radar fails, do ATC folks have at their avail the last recorded
> positions of all aircraft or a computed projection (coast?), or do
> all the screens just go black? :O

Depends on what failed. If the radar itself failed then you would still
have the coast tags. If the radar display itself failed you have your
paper strips and your memory.


I don't doubt that most controllers
> can revert back to non-radar procedures and successfully handle traffic,
> I'm just curious how the transition would occur.

A real display failure with any amount of traffic is a total goat rope.
Approach controllers don't do nonradar and if forced to do so on
zero notice it could get real ugly real fast.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> A real display failure with any amount of traffic is a total goat rope.
> Approach controllers don't do nonradar and if forced to do so on
> zero notice it could get real ugly real fast.

Centers these days don't do real well at non-radar, either, compared to the
"good old days." This is particularly so where they provide non-radar
terminal services, such as at a place like Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

[Andrew Sarangan]

Our problem is the opposite. When we file using airways we almost
always get a direct via radar vectors. This messes things up if it
happens to be a training flight. We end up having to renegotiate an
airway clearance. If I include "training flight" in the remarks box I
have had better luck with getting the route I want.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "Hankal" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > This is not just for controllers.
> > Will it help if I file in the remarks "VFR GPS"
> > I file 172/U
> > Will I get more direct to commands.
> > I still fly VOR to VOR but sometimes I am out of range, but
> > still get proceed direct.
> >
>
> If you want direct, file direct. If ATC can provide radar monitoring they
> can clear you direct regardless what equipment suffix you use.

[tscottme]

Newps > wrote in message
news:Fys8c.2523$K91.15525@attbi_s02...
>
> A real display failure with any amount of traffic is a total goat
rope.
> Approach controllers don't do nonradar and if forced to do so on
> zero notice it could get real ugly real fast.
>

So you recommend being the first aircraft to declare an emergency when
the failure happens? ;-)

--

Scott
--------

[Newps]

tscottme wrote:
> Newps > wrote in message
> news:Fys8c.2523$K91.15525@attbi_s02...
>
>>A real display failure with any amount of traffic is a total goat
>
> rope.
>
>> Approach controllers don't do nonradar and if forced to do so on
>>zero notice it could get real ugly real fast.
>>
>
>
> So you recommend being the first aircraft to declare an emergency when
> the failure happens? ;-)


No, the first one to cancel.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Donald Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
>
> When radar fails, do ATC folks have at their avail the last recorded
> positions of all aircraft or a computed projection (coast?), or do
> all the screens just go black? :O
>

Depends on the facility and the type of failure. Is it an actual radar
failure or is it a computer failure? Single or multi radar site system?
You can have a computer failure and still have radar data available on a
backup system. You can lose a radar site in a multi site system with
minimal impact. An approach control may lose the secondary radar but still
have primary radar, it may be able to pull up an ARTCC radar site as a
backup. When some TRACONs lose their radar the overlying ARTCC takes their
airspace.


>
> I don't doubt that most controllers
> can revert back to non-radar procedures and successfully handle traffic,
> I'm just curious how the transition would occur.
>

Many controllers can't revert back to non-radar procedures because they
never learned them to begin with.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you recommend being the first aircraft to declare an emergency when
> the failure happens? ;-)
>

What would you expect that to do for you?