An odd clearance...can anyone explain?

[Andrew Gideon]

Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...

It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused me.
The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.

So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?

What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and then
proceeded to ETX. But was that right?

- Andrew

[Roy Smith]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
> cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...
>
> It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused me.
> The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
> trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.

That's only good enough if it's a "fly by" waypoint :-)

> So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?
>
> What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and then
> proceeded to ETX. But was that right?

I've gotten clearances like that before. What exactly what your
clearanance? Was it "direct Lancaster, direct East Texas", or was it
"direct Lancaster, Victor-something, East Texas"?

If the latter, they need to stick Lancaster in there because the airway
terminates at the VOR, not at the airport. It's somewhat of a moot
point, but it keeps the flight plan computers happy.

From a practical point of view, you take off, obey any DP's, then turn
direct ETX.

[Andrew Gideon]

Roy Smith wrote:

> That's only good enough if it's a "fly by" waypoint :-)

Hmm. I doubt I could have had enough altitude to "fly over". Is there such
a thing as a "fly through" waypoint?

>> So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?
>>
>> What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and
>> then
>> proceeded to ETX. But was that right?
>
> I've gotten clearances like that before. What exactly what your
> clearanance? Was it "direct Lancaster, direct East Texas", or was it
> "direct Lancaster, Victor-something, East Texas"?

I'm not sure of the exact wording; sorry. I don't believe airways were
specified, though.

> If the latter, they need to stick Lancaster in there because the airway
> terminates at the VOR, not at the airport. It's somewhat of a moot
> point, but it keeps the flight plan computers happy.

Hmm. That does make sense, I suppose. Silly programmers.

> From a practical point of view, you take off, obey any DP's, then turn
> direct ETX.

Good.

- Andrew

[zatatime]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:58:04 -0400, Andrew Gideon
> wrote:

>Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
>cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...
>
>It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused me.
>The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
>trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.
>
>So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?
>
>What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and then
>proceeded to ETX. But was that right?
>
> - Andrew

Your clearance is supposed to start with the closest fix to the
airport. As luck would have it you don't get any closer to an airport
than ON the airport. Where I fly out of there is a VOR on the filed.
What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading
until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like
any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After
station passage continue on your normal route.

When you turn to go to the first station, you may actually back track
for a mile or so, but its the proper way to execute the clearance.

HTH.
z

[Andrew Gideon]

zatatime wrote:

> What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading
> until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like
> any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After
> station passage continue on your normal route.

That was the possibility that I'd considered and rejected. I'd be very
interested to know on what you're basing that this is correct, as it's not
what I ultimately chose.

As far as I know, there's no requirement that a clearance start with "the
closest fix to the airport". When I depart CDW to the west, for example,
the clearance starts with LANNA. If using a closer fix were necessary,
we'd use the closer fix of SBJ...esp. given that LANNA is defined by a
radial from SBJ, and there's no other way a /U can reasonably locate LANNA
w/o passing by SBJ.

More, there's nothing wrong with intercepting an airway at some point not a
defined waypoint. I've been told in clearances to fly some heading or
radial to intercept an airway plenty of times. So intercepting the airway
between the Lancaster VOR and ETX is no great feat.

Finally, turning and flying back toward the VOR on the field puts me into
potential conflict with the VFR pattern. I don't know that there were any
of those on the day of my visit, but I don't know that there weren't.

So I decided to not do what you think is correct. So I might have been
wrong. As I wrote, I'd be very interested in something which shows this to
be the case (or not to be the case, of course {8^).

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
> cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...
>
> It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused
> me. The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
> trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.
>
> So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?
>
> What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and
> then proceeded to ETX. But was that right?
>

What had you filed and what was the actual clearance?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your clearance is supposed to start with the closest fix to the
> airport.
>

Says who?

[CB]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> zatatime wrote:
>
>> What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading
>> until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like
>> any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After
>> station passage continue on your normal route.
>
> That was the possibility that I'd considered and rejected. I'd be very
> interested to know on what you're basing that this is correct, as it's not
> what I ultimately chose.

To me it seems the logical thing to do. Take off, establish the departure
then fly to the fix in the clearance. If you have a worry about pattern
traffic climb at a rate that allows you to get above the pattern as you turn
back towards the VOR on the field but stay with the clearance altitude.
It strikes me as a similar situation flying a missed approach when the
holding fix is a VOR on the field.

I think it needs working out but ignoring the clearance as you seem to have
done from what you have written seems wrong.

Mind you I stand to be corrected and flamed by the anti authority, pistol
packing " I do what I like" brigade.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:11:20 GMT, zatatime >
wrote:

>Your clearance is supposed to start with the closest fix to the
>airport.

Where is that information stated?

I've never heard of that requirement before. And it's never been applied
leaving EPM (non-radar) unless they specifically wanted me to climb to a
particular altitude before leaving the fix. (The latter has happened
perhaps twice in the past five years).


--ron

[Stan Gosnell]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
online.com:

> Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
> cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...
>
> It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused
> me. The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as
> a trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.
>
> So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?
>
> What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and
> then proceeded to ETX. But was that right?

I think it's a moot point. You got close enough. I fly from a field that
has a VOR on the field, and when I depart, I never try to come back and fly
directly over the VOR. ATC radar isn't precise enough to tell whether you
fly directly over it or not, and victor airways are wide enough to cover
your turns anyway. ATC doesn't seem to expect me to turn around and do the
circling anyway; they want me to get on with the trip. I fly the published
departure procedure, which requires flying runway heading until above 500',
and then turn to intercept my course.

The clearance I regularly get which makes no sense to me is 'enter
controlled airspace heading xxx', when I'm already in controlled airspace.
The airport is centered in a Class E surface area. I just read back the
clearance and fly as if the Class E started at 700' or so. I don't try to
lift off directly across the runway.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Bob Gardner]

At the risk of repeating myself....if you don't understand, ask!!!

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
> cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...
>
> It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused
me.
> The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
> trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.
>
> So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?
>
> What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and
then
> proceeded to ETX. But was that right?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Brad Z]

Thank you Bob!...why did it take 11 replies in the thread before anyone
mentioned asking the controller? If he/she gave you the clearance, chances
are he/she is in a good position to answer this question.



"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> At the risk of repeating myself....if you don't understand, ask!!!
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> > Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
> > cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...
> >
> > It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused
> me.
> > The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
> > trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.
> >
> > So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?
> >
> > What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and
> then
> > proceeded to ETX. But was that right?
> >
> > - Andrew
> >
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Brad Z wrote:

> Thank you Bob!...why did it take 11 replies in the thread before anyone
> mentioned asking the controller? If he/she gave you the clearance,
> chances are he/she is in a good position to answer this question.

The weird thing: I did ask. I got no response. Literally.

But I was late. Instead of asking clearance delivery (it didn't click a
weird while I copied it), I asked the tower just before takeoff.

- Andrew

[Roy Smith]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> Brad Z wrote:
>
> > Thank you Bob!...why did it take 11 replies in the thread before anyone
> > mentioned asking the controller? If he/she gave you the clearance,
> > chances are he/she is in a good position to answer this question.
>
> The weird thing: I did ask. I got no response. Literally.
>
> But I was late. Instead of asking clearance delivery (it didn't click a
> weird while I copied it), I asked the tower just before takeoff.
>
> - Andrew

The tower could probably care less what your clearance is or how you fly
it. His only job is to tell approach when you're ready to go and clear
you for takeoff when he gets your release.

[Julian Scarfe]

> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> > Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
> > cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> At the risk of repeating myself....if you don't understand, ask!!!

Reminds me of a guy who posted here many years ago about an incident in
Canada. IIRC departing Ottawa he thought was cleared via the Ottawa VOR
then enroute fixes, but had a lot of trouble with the accents. He didn't ask
for clarification (well not more than a couple of times). So he took off
and turned back towards the on-field VOR, only to find that that made ATC
really upset. Turns out he had been cleared via the Ottawa *Four*
[departure], not the Ottawa *VOR*.

(Actually I remembered it with poetic licence but my story's better than
reality... ;-)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1994Dec7.165220.1353%40peck.com

Julian

[Icebound]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> > "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> > online.com...
> > > Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
> > > cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > At the risk of repeating myself....if you don't understand, ask!!!
>
> Reminds me of a guy who posted here many years ago about an incident in
> Canada.

The Ottawa VOR is 11 miles off-field, so it wouldn't quite as bizarre as
clearance to an on-field navaid.

[Andrew Sarangan]

"Icebound" > wrote in
able.rogers.com:

>
> "Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
>> > online.com...
>> > > Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance.
>> > > I was cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East
>> > > Texas VOR...
>>
>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > At the risk of repeating myself....if you don't understand, ask!!!
>>
>> Reminds me of a guy who posted here many years ago about an incident
>> in Canada.
>
> The Ottawa VOR is 11 miles off-field, so it wouldn't quite as bizarre
> as clearance to an on-field navaid.
>
>
>
>



If you pass the VOR within 1/2 mile, I would consider that as 'crossing
the VOR'. The original poster was close to the VOR when he took off.
Hence I don't see a need to return to that VOR after taking off. Just
proceed to the next fix.

[Roy Smith]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> If you pass the VOR within 1/2 mile, I would consider that as 'crossing
> the VOR'. The original poster was close to the VOR when he took off.
> Hence I don't see a need to return to that VOR after taking off. Just
> proceed to the next fix.

I agree with Andrew, but feel compelled to point out that this is only
true for an en-route clearance. If you were flying a DP which said
something like "fly runway heading to 1000, left turn direct Lancaster
VOR, the proceed on course", that would be a different story.

But, the OP didn't say anything about a DP, so I'm assuing that's not
what was going on here.

[BH]

>>> Andrew > 11/09/2004 5:58:04 am >>>
>Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
>cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...
>
>It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused
>me.
>The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
>trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.
>
>So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?
>
>What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and
>then
>proceeded to ETX. But was that right?
>
> - Andrew

Andrew,

I would just have made a pilot intercept of the appropriate Lancaster VOR
radial as soon as practical.

[zatatime]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:52:44 -0400, Andrew Gideon
> wrote:

>zatatime wrote:
>
>> What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading
>> until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like
>> any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After
>> station passage continue on your normal route.
>
>That was the possibility that I'd considered and rejected. I'd be very
>interested to know on what you're basing that this is correct, as it's not
>what I ultimately chose.

I think it would depend on the actual clearance received. If you
received a "...direct Lancaster VOR..." clearance then it would be
proper to overfly the VOR. If you received a different clearance then
you may not have to. In my experiences I usually get something like
"climb to 2000, direct SBJ, Vsoandso to wherever...." so that is why I
said what I said.

>
>As far as I know, there's no requirement that a clearance start with "the
>closest fix to the airport". When I depart CDW to the west, for example,
>the clearance starts with LANNA. If using a closer fix were necessary,
>we'd use the closer fix of SBJ...esp. given that LANNA is defined by a
>radial from SBJ, and there's no other way a /U can reasonably locate LANNA
>w/o passing by SBJ.
This is why there was a delay in my response. I wanted to try to find
some documentation to back up what I was taught, and I wasn't home
much the last few days. Guess what? There isn't any! The only thing
I found was a statement sating the departure point will be to a
'nearby' fix. Nowhere did I find you have to file to the closest fix.
This leads me to questions since I obviously either was taught
incorrectly, or interpreted what I was taught incorrectly.

What is the definition of nearby? Can I file to any VOR or
intersection, say, within 20 miles of my departure point? Do I have
to actually file starting with a fix, or can I just file from any
point on an airway? Given the busy nature of the NY area, what are my
odds of getting a clearance using a fix further away? (That last one
may just come from experience). A better understanding of this sure
will help me pick better routes in the future since I'd always file to
the closest, even if I had a crappy route to my destination.

As far as your example: How the heck do you get to LANNA if your a
/U? I'm thinking your clearances are Radar Vectors to LANNA
then.....otherwise, as you state you have to go to SBJ VOR anyway, so
why doesn't the clearance start there?
>
>More, there's nothing wrong with intercepting an airway at some point not a
>defined waypoint. I've been told in clearances to fly some heading or
>radial to intercept an airway plenty of times. So intercepting the airway
>between the Lancaster VOR and ETX is no great feat.

Agreed, I've had similar experiences, but can you file it that way?

>
>Finally, turning and flying back toward the VOR on the field puts me into
>potential conflict with the VFR pattern. I don't know that there were any
>of those on the day of my visit, but I don't know that there weren't.
>
>So I decided to not do what you think is correct. So I might have been
>wrong. As I wrote, I'd be very interested in something which shows this to
>be the case (or not to be the case, of course {8^).

To know what was right or wrong, as I said, we'd need the actual
clearance. Sitting here I can't tell either way, but I am happy to
have learned something, and hope anyone with answers to the questions
this thread has raised in my head can be discussed.

Again - sorry for the delayed response.

z

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:00:21 GMT, zatatime >
wrote:

>What is the definition of nearby? Can I file to any VOR or
>intersection, say, within 20 miles of my departure point? Do I have
>to actually file starting with a fix, or can I just file from any
>point on an airway? Given the busy nature of the NY area, what are my
>odds of getting a clearance using a fix further away? (That last one
>may just come from experience). A better understanding of this sure
>will help me pick better routes in the future since I'd always file to
>the closest, even if I had a crappy route to my destination.

I know of no restrictions such as question.

If I am flying from, let us say, KEPM to KASH, I will either file (and be
cleared), as my initial fix, BRNNS (140 NM) or ENE (178 NM). And I could
just as easily file direct to KASH. I don't because of overwater
considerations.

And those clearances were issued when I was filing /A.

In a non-radar environment, though, different considerations apply.

So far as the NY area, close to NYC (and I would guess in most busy
airspaces), random routes are not commonly approved. I would not expect to
depart KFRG cleared direct ETX, for example. There are also altitude
restrictions on certain routings.

However, you might be able to get something like KBDR direct ACK. And if
over water distance were not a consideration, that's how I would file.


--ron

[Stan Gosnell]

zatatime > wrote in
:

> What is the definition of nearby? Can I file to any VOR or
> intersection, say, within 20 miles of my departure point? Do I have
> to actually file starting with a fix, or can I just file from any
> point on an airway? Given the busy nature of the NY area, what are my
> odds of getting a clearance using a fix further away? (That last one
> may just come from experience). A better understanding of this sure
> will help me pick better routes in the future since I'd always file to
> the closest, even if I had a crappy route to my destination.

You can file to any fix you can navigate to. I regularly file to and from
lat/lon coordinates, far from any airway. It's easier for ATC if you file to
a fix they have in the database, but it's not absolutely essential. You do
need to be able to navigate to the fix in the event of radar failure.

You may not be cleared to the fix you filed to, and perhaps won't get the
route you filed. But you can *file* what you like.

--
Regards,

Stan

[john smith]

Reading Don Brown's AvWeb column, filing to lat/lon's is causes problems.

Stan Gosnell wrote:
> You can file to any fix you can navigate to. I regularly file to and from
> lat/lon coordinates, far from any airway. It's easier for ATC if you file to
> a fix they have in the database, but it's not absolutely essential. You do
> need to be able to navigate to the fix in the event of radar failure.
> You may not be cleared to the fix you filed to, and perhaps won't get the
> route you filed. But you can *file* what you like.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Reading Don Brown's AvWeb column, filing to lat/lon's is causes problems.
>

He's mistaken.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...

> What had you filed and what was the actual clearance?

How do you differentiate a VOR from an airport when filing? What is
the difference between SAC and SAC, what is the difference between SMO
and SMO, etc.
-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> What had you filed and what was the actual clearance?
>>
>
> How do you differentiate a VOR from an airport when filing? What is
> the difference between SAC and SAC, what is the difference between SMO
> and SMO, etc.
>

On-field VORs usually have the same identifier as the airport, but not
always. In this case Lancaster Airport is LNS and Lancaster VORTAC is LRP.
It may simply be that the proposal strip had LNS..LRP..ETX... as the route
and the controller just read it as written.

[Stan Gosnell]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in
om:

> How do you differentiate a VOR from an airport when filing? What is
> the difference between SAC and SAC, what is the difference between SMO
> and SMO, etc.
> -Robert

In the US, put a K in front of the airport identifier. KSAC is the
airport.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> (Robert M. Gary) wrote in
> om:
>>
>> How do you differentiate a VOR from an airport when filing? What is
>> the difference between SAC and SAC, what is the difference between
>> SMO and SMO, etc.
>>
>
> In the US, put a K in front of the airport identifier. KSAC is the
> airport.
>

That's fine, but unnecessary. The position in the route indicates whether
it's an airport or navaid. If you filed SAC..SAC..SMO..SMO, for example,
the first and last fixes are assumed to be airports. Northwest Airlines
provides service from Green Bay to Minneapolis. About half their flights
are filed GRB..GRB.EAU6.MSP, the rest are filed GRB.EAU6.MSP. GRB VORTAC is
about five miles northwest of the airport but the flights are treated
exactly the same

[Robert M. Gary]

Stan Gosnell > wrote in message >...
> (Robert M. Gary) wrote in
> om:
>
> > How do you differentiate a VOR from an airport when filing? What is
> > the difference between SAC and SAC, what is the difference between SMO
> > and SMO, etc.
> > -Robert
>
> In the US, put a K in front of the airport identifier. KSAC is the
> airport.

Yes, but I want the VOR

[Robert M. Gary]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Robert M. Gary) wrote in
> > om:

> That's fine, but unnecessary. The position in the route indicates whether
> it's an airport or navaid. If you filed SAC..SAC..SMO..SMO, for example,
> the first and last fixes are assumed to be airports. Northwest Airlines
> provides service from Green Bay to Minneapolis. About half their flights
> are filed GRB..GRB.EAU6.MSP, the rest are filed GRB.EAU6.MSP. GRB VORTAC is
> about five miles northwest of the airport but the flights are treated
> exactly the same

I guess the situations where I've had it come up are when I want to
fly the VFR route over LAX and then pick up my IFR at the SMO VOR.
When the controllers see SMO as the first fix, they seem to assume I
want to pick it up on the ground. In every case, approach as refused
to issue clearance when in the air.

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I guess the situations where I've had it come up are when I want to
> fly the VFR route over LAX and then pick up my IFR at the SMO VOR.
> When the controllers see SMO as the first fix, they seem to assume I
> want to pick it up on the ground.
>

Naturally.


>
> In every case, approach as refused to issue clearance when in the air.
>

Did they say why?

[Robert M. Gary]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...

> >
> > In every case, approach as refused to issue clearance when in the air.
> >
>
> Did they say why?

They said I could land and pick up the clearance on the ground but
that they would not issue the clearance in the air. Perhaps this is
standard operating procedure for LA Approach? Do some areas just
consider themselves too special to have to issue airborne clearances?
-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>
> They said I could land and pick up the clearance on the ground but
> that they would not issue the clearance in the air. Perhaps this is
> standard operating procedure for LA Approach? Do some areas just
> consider themselves too special to have to issue airborne clearances?
>

One wacko controller is probably more likely. No reason at all why it
couldn't be issued in the air.