Fixes provided in routing for IFR flight plans - VFR waypoints okay?

[Mxsmanic]

I can't find any guidelines on the type of fixes or waypoints to be
included in the routing description of an IFR flight plan. I presume
you can use things like VORs and (?) airports, as well as airways and
anything indicated on IFR charts or procedures. But can you also use
VPxxx waypoints or other VFR fixes?

The reason for asking is that I'm wondering if a VFR flight plan with
detailed routing that lists specific waypoints and fixes can be easily
converted to IFR without changing the routing, should weather or other
factors mandate a switch to IFR for the flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> converted to IFR without changing the routing, should weather or other
> factors mandate a switch to IFR for the flight.

Hey y'all,

This guy has been trolling the rec.aviation.piloting and
rec.aviation.student newsgroups.

He does not fly a real plane, just plays games on MSFS.

If you could ignore this guy, it sure would be appreciated.

Otherwise, the noise level in this group will rocket sky high.

Allen

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > converted to IFR without changing the routing, should weather or other
> > factors mandate a switch to IFR for the flight.
>
> Hey y'all,
>
> This guy has been trolling the rec.aviation.piloting and
> rec.aviation.student newsgroups.
>
> He does not fly a real plane, just plays games on MSFS.

He can't afford a real plane, so he's doing the best he can. He asks
reasonable questions under the circumstances.

> If you could ignore this guy, it sure would be appreciated.

Why should we ignore him when you don't?

> Otherwise, the noise level in this group will rocket sky high.

IMHO you are contributing much more noise than mxsmanic does. At least
he talks about flying.

rg

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I can't find any guidelines on the type of fixes or waypoints to be
> included in the routing description of an IFR flight plan. I presume
> you can use things like VORs and (?) airports, as well as airways and
> anything indicated on IFR charts or procedures. But can you also use
> VPxxx waypoints or other VFR fixes?

You can clearly use anything that defines an airway (but not T-airways),
and ground-based navaids like VORs and NDBs, unless specifically tagged
as "VFR Use Only". You specifically may not use VPxxx waypoints.

> The reason for asking is that I'm wondering if a VFR flight plan with
> detailed routing that lists specific waypoints and fixes can be easily
> converted to IFR without changing the routing, should weather or other
> factors mandate a switch to IFR for the flight.

You can google for a long-ago thread that describes how to file a VFR
flight plan that actually goes to ATC. If ATC doesn't have your flight
plan, you're starting from scratch when you want to convert from VFR to IFR.

Basically you check the "IFR" box on the flight plan form, then in the
altitude box you write "VFR045" for 4500 feet (or something like that).
Someone will correct me.

If you don't check the IFR box, ATC never sees your flight plan, just FSS.

Another advantage of this technique is that when you call up the next
facility for VFR advisories, they already know who you are and where you
are going. When the initial controller "departs" you, it initiates
sending a strip to each of the facilities down the line based on your
filed airspeed, just like for an IFR flight.

There was a lot of discussion about whether it is legal to check the IFR
box on the flight plan form if you don't hold an instrument rating.
Clearly the answer is yes, it is legal [dons flameproof suit].

[A Lieberma]

B A R R Y > wrote in news:52mbh.16922$9v5.15977
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

> I just thought of an "freebie" that might be of interest to you in your
> sim realism, "Sporty's Study Buddy":
> <http://sportys.com/faatest/study/> Sporty's Study Buddy is more of a
> "learn the answers to the questions" system than a true course, but it's
> free.
>
> I was also going to suggest an online ground school, like King's:
> <http://www.kingschools.com/>, but I remember money is tight. Since you
> have no interest in actually flying, and won't actually have to pass a
> current written / oral exam, watching eBay for an outdated ground school
> video course (cheap, of course! <G>) might be worthwhile.

Hey Barry,

You are wasting your time.

Mx isn't going to give your references the time of day..... Others have
pointed him to many different sites.

Unfortunately, looks like Mx is now polluting the rec.aviation.ifr group

:-(

Allen

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The reason for asking is that I'm wondering if a VFR flight plan with
> detailed routing that lists specific waypoints and fixes can be easily
> converted to IFR without changing the routing, should weather or other
> factors mandate a switch to IFR for the flight.

You use IFR chart features on an IFR plan. Items like VOR, NDB, and
airports with instrument approaches are on IFR Charts. Another
document, known as the AF/D, or "Airport Facility Directory", lists
"preferred routes", which ATC will usually put you on regardless of what
you try to file.

AF/D's are free here:
<http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_afd>

The "supplemental" section has the IFR routes 40 or so pages in. You
can also look up restricted airspace, noise abatement corridors, etc...
so you can keep the simulated Baron out of simulated trouble and prevent
****ing off the simulated noise-sensitive residents (simulated Skylune?
<G>) you're flying over.

It is possible to file a flight plan that uses both IFR and VFR
portions. This is known as a "composite" flight plan.

I just thought of an "freebie" that might be of interest to you in your
sim realism, "Sporty's Study Buddy":
<http://sportys.com/faatest/study/> Sporty's Study Buddy is more of a
"learn the answers to the questions" system than a true course, but it's
free.

I was also going to suggest an online ground school, like King's:
<http://www.kingschools.com/>, but I remember money is tight. Since you
have no interest in actually flying, and won't actually have to pass a
current written / oral exam, watching eBay for an outdated ground school
video course (cheap, of course! <G>) might be worthwhile.

[Jim Macklin]

As filed, flight plans are not flown. VFR might well be
just as simple as telling FSS VFR, Washington DC ,
Indianapolis, St. Louis, Destination Kansas City [the phrase
close enough for government work comes to mind.]
My actual plan would have many points for visual and radio
navigation.

An IFR plan is more detailed, but might only have a
departure airport, a SID and airway and a STAR and might
only have the airway, the feds will assign the SID and STAR
anyway.




"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. net...
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| >
| > The reason for asking is that I'm wondering if a VFR
flight plan with
| > detailed routing that lists specific waypoints and fixes
can be easily
| > converted to IFR without changing the routing, should
weather or other
| > factors mandate a switch to IFR for the flight.
|
| You use IFR chart features on an IFR plan. Items like
VOR, NDB, and
| airports with instrument approaches are on IFR Charts.
Another
| document, known as the AF/D, or "Airport Facility
Directory", lists
| "preferred routes", which ATC will usually put you on
regardless of what
| you try to file.
|
| AF/D's are free here:
| <http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_afd>
|
| The "supplemental" section has the IFR routes 40 or so
pages in. You
| can also look up restricted airspace, noise abatement
corridors, etc...
| so you can keep the simulated Baron out of simulated
trouble and prevent
| ****ing off the simulated noise-sensitive residents
(simulated Skylune?
| <G>) you're flying over.
|
| It is possible to file a flight plan that uses both IFR
and VFR
| portions. This is known as a "composite" flight plan.
|
| I just thought of an "freebie" that might be of interest
to you in your
| sim realism, "Sporty's Study Buddy":
| <http://sportys.com/faatest/study/> Sporty's Study
Buddy is more of a
| "learn the answers to the questions" system than a true
course, but it's
| free.
|
| I was also going to suggest an online ground school, like
King's:
| <http://www.kingschools.com/>, but I remember money is
tight. Since you
| have no interest in actually flying, and won't actually
have to pass a
| current written / oral exam, watching eBay for an outdated
ground school
| video course (cheap, of course! <G>) might be worthwhile.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Butler writes:

> You can clearly use anything that defines an airway (but not T-airways),
> and ground-based navaids like VORs and NDBs, unless specifically tagged
> as "VFR Use Only". You specifically may not use VPxxx waypoints.

OK. So I'd probably be better off avoiding VPxxx waypoints to begin
with, even for VFR, if there's any chance that I'd want to use that as
a base for an IFR flight plan. Too bad ... there's lots of VPxxx
waypoints on the VFR charts, whereas the only other ones indicated are
on airways, and there are a lot less of those (at least in high
traffic areas).

> Basically you check the "IFR" box on the flight plan form, then in the
> altitude box you write "VFR045" for 4500 feet (or something like that).
> Someone will correct me.

Hmm ... I didn't know that.

> Another advantage of this technique is that when you call up the next
> facility for VFR advisories, they already know who you are and where you
> are going. When the initial controller "departs" you, it initiates
> sending a strip to each of the facilities down the line based on your
> filed airspeed, just like for an IFR flight.

Sounds very convenient.

Is there someplace on the Web that discusses everything you can
validly put in an IFR flight plan (or a VFR flight plan, for that
matter)? I can't find any detailed descriptions in the references
I've looked at.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> You use IFR chart features on an IFR plan.

Is there any place that has IFR charts online, like SkyVector does for
VFR charts?

> AF/D's are free here:
> <http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_afd>

I'm trying to download that now.

> The "supplemental" section has the IFR routes 40 or so pages in. You
> can also look up restricted airspace, noise abatement corridors, etc...
> so you can keep the simulated Baron out of simulated trouble and prevent
> ****ing off the simulated noise-sensitive residents (simulated Skylune?
> <G>) you're flying over.

I have simulated lawyers to protect me, but your point is well taken.

> It is possible to file a flight plan that uses both IFR and VFR
> portions. This is known as a "composite" flight plan.

Well, I can't even find the details on how to file a basic flight
plan, like what all the slash notations mean or guidelines for giving
the routing information or anything. I found the paper form itself
online, but no instructions.

> I just thought of an "freebie" that might be of interest to you in your
> sim realism, "Sporty's Study Buddy":
> <http://sportys.com/faatest/study/> Sporty's Study Buddy is more of a
> "learn the answers to the questions" system than a true course, but it's
> free.

I won't be taking an actual test any time soon, so I'm more interested
in detailed answers than in rote responses to test questions, but I'll
keep it in mind.

> I was also going to suggest an online ground school, like King's:
> <http://www.kingschools.com/>, but I remember money is tight.

Yes. Unfortunately, anything that isn't free right now is out of the
question.

> Since you
> have no interest in actually flying, and won't actually have to pass a
> current written / oral exam, watching eBay for an outdated ground school
> video course (cheap, of course! <G>) might be worthwhile.

What does ground school cover that isn't in the downloadable stuff
from the FAA? I remember my father taking a ground school course
endless years ago and a big fat book that came with it, but I don't
recall anything else.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Is there someplace on the Web that discusses everything you can
> validly put in an IFR flight plan (or a VFR flight plan, for that
> matter)? I can't find any detailed descriptions in the references
> I've looked at.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Butler writes:

> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf

Excellent! Thanks. I had the book, but I didn't know it had detailed
information on routing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> As filed, flight plans are not flown. VFR might well be
> just as simple as telling FSS VFR, Washington DC ,
> Indianapolis, St. Louis, Destination Kansas City [the phrase
> close enough for government work comes to mind.]
> My actual plan would have many points for visual and radio
> navigation.

You're saying that you only put a few simple indications on the form
but you fly a more detailed plan?

I try to figure out lots of waypoints for VFR flights ... mainly
because there are so many restricted areas and Class-whatever
airspaces that I have to go through or avoid. If these didn't exist,
I could just look out the window in many cases; but since the chart
lines aren't marked on the real terrain, I try to have enough
waypoints figured out in advance so that I can be sure I'll be in the
right place at the right point from a regulatory standpoint.

> An IFR plan is more detailed, but might only have a
> departure airport, a SID and airway and a STAR and might
> only have the airway, the feds will assign the SID and STAR
> anyway.

Do you normally get arrival and departure procedures when you request
the IFR clearance, or does the arrival procedure not come up until you
are approaching your destination?

I've had a lot of trouble programming a FMS with procedures on the
fly, which is why I ask. I also have to try to dig up charts on the
spur of the moment, which is awkward.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>> As filed, flight plans are not flown. VFR might well be
>> just as simple as telling FSS VFR, Washington DC ,
>> Indianapolis, St. Louis, Destination Kansas City [the phrase
>> close enough for government work comes to mind.]
>> My actual plan would have many points for visual and radio
>> navigation.
>
> You're saying that you only put a few simple indications on the form
> but you fly a more detailed plan?
>
> I try to figure out lots of waypoints for VFR flights ... mainly
> because there are so many restricted areas and Class-whatever
> airspaces that I have to go through or avoid. If these didn't exist,
> I could just look out the window in many cases; but since the chart
> lines aren't marked on the real terrain, I try to have enough
> waypoints figured out in advance so that I can be sure I'll be in the
> right place at the right point from a regulatory standpoint.
>
>> An IFR plan is more detailed, but might only have a
>> departure airport, a SID and airway and a STAR and might
>> only have the airway, the feds will assign the SID and STAR
>> anyway.
>
> Do you normally get arrival and departure procedures when you request
> the IFR clearance, or does the arrival procedure not come up until you
> are approaching your destination?
>
> I've had a lot of trouble programming a FMS with procedures on the
> fly, which is why I ask. I also have to try to dig up charts on the
> spur of the moment, which is awkward.

Not one word in this post saying he is playing a game called MSFS and not
flying a real plane

Replier be forewarned.... Especially the IFR newsgroup. Better yet,
ignore him, he is a troll.

Allen

[Morgans[_2_]]

"A Lieberma" > wrote

> Not one word in this post saying he is playing a game called MSFS and not
> flying a real plane
>
> Replier be forewarned.... Especially the IFR newsgroup. Better yet,
> ignore him, he is a troll.

At least three new ones for my new file. I'm surprised, but not surprised, that
people still can't resist responding.

It is starting to get quiet, though. My blood pressure is staying down, too.
<g>
--
Jim in NC

[A Lieberma]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> At least three new ones for my new file. I'm surprised, but not
> surprised, that people still can't resist responding.
>
> It is starting to get quiet, though. My blood pressure is staying
> down, too. <g>

It was a 24 hour respite here..... What made it worse was my only safe
haven (rec.aviation.ifr) now has been smitten by this troll.....

But I am doing good.... Still have not made a direct reply :-)

Allen

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > "Jim Macklin" > writes:
> >
> >> As filed, flight plans are not flown. VFR might well be
> >> just as simple as telling FSS VFR, Washington DC ,
> >> Indianapolis, St. Louis, Destination Kansas City [the phrase
> >> close enough for government work comes to mind.]
> >> My actual plan would have many points for visual and radio
> >> navigation.
> >
> > You're saying that you only put a few simple indications on the form
> > but you fly a more detailed plan?
> >
> > I try to figure out lots of waypoints for VFR flights ... mainly
> > because there are so many restricted areas and Class-whatever
> > airspaces that I have to go through or avoid. If these didn't exist,
> > I could just look out the window in many cases; but since the chart
> > lines aren't marked on the real terrain, I try to have enough
> > waypoints figured out in advance so that I can be sure I'll be in the
> > right place at the right point from a regulatory standpoint.
> >
> >> An IFR plan is more detailed, but might only have a
> >> departure airport, a SID and airway and a STAR and might
> >> only have the airway, the feds will assign the SID and STAR
> >> anyway.
> >
> > Do you normally get arrival and departure procedures when you request
> > the IFR clearance, or does the arrival procedure not come up until you
> > are approaching your destination?
> >
> > I've had a lot of trouble programming a FMS with procedures on the
> > fly, which is why I ask. I also have to try to dig up charts on the
> > spur of the moment, which is awkward.
>
> Not one word in this post saying he is playing a game called MSFS and not
> flying a real plane

So what? It's a reasonable question. What difference does it make what
his motivation is for asking it?

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Do you normally get arrival and departure procedures when you request
> the IFR clearance, or does the arrival procedure not come up until you
> are approaching your destination?

The latter. (Obviously you get the departure clearance up front.)

ATC will often change your routing en-route also.

> I've had a lot of trouble programming a FMS with procedures on the
> fly, which is why I ask. I also have to try to dig up charts on the
> spur of the moment, which is awkward.

Indeed. Real flying is not trivial.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> The latter. (Obviously you get the departure clearance up front.)
>
> ATC will often change your routing en-route also.

I can see why flying with a copilot makes IFR easier.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> So what? It's a reasonable question. What difference does it make what
> his motivation is for asking it?

Trolling is not a acceptable motivation.

Get a clue!

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So what? It's a reasonable question. What difference does it make what
> > his motivation is for asking it?
>
> Trolling is not a acceptable motivation.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe he is trolling. He has some annoyin
habits to be sure, but if that were sufficient reason to kick someone
off a newsgroup there would be no one here.

rg

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> You use IFR chart features on an IFR plan.
>
> Is there any place that has IFR charts online, like SkyVector does for
> VFR charts?

I don't know. I do have some expired IFR charts that can go along with
my previous offer re: expired VFR charts.

>
> I have simulated lawyers to protect me, but your point is well taken.

I know some folks who wish divorce laywers were simulated. <G>


> Well, I can't even find the details on how to file a basic flight
> plan, like what all the slash notations mean or guidelines for giving
> the routing information or anything. I found the paper form itself
> online, but no instructions.

You're going to have to dig into the AIM for that, or a ground school
course.

>
> What does ground school cover that isn't in the downloadable stuff
> from the FAA?

It contains different explanations, which can make the material more
understandable.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > So what? It's a reasonable question. What difference does it make
>> > what
>> > his motivation is for asking it?
>>
>> Trolling is not a acceptable motivation.
>
> I'm sorry, but I do not believe he is trolling.

Read his arrogant/idiotic followups and it's quite obvious that is exactly
what he's doing.

The indicator is a non-troll answers responses with, "Oh, I didn't now
that", not arguing with people who have been flying their entire adult life.

Whether it comes from personality faults, psychological and maturity issues
isn't the point; this is a flying froup, not free psychological counseling.

>He has some annoyin
> habits to be sure, but if that were sufficient reason to kick someone
> off a newsgroup there would be no one here.
>
No one is/can throwing him off the newsgroup.

Again, get a clue!

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I can't find any guidelines on the type of fixes or waypoints to be
> included in the routing description of an IFR flight plan. I presume
> you can use things like VORs and (?) airports, as well as airways and
> anything indicated on IFR charts or procedures. But can you also use
> VPxxx waypoints or other VFR fixes?
>

The VPxxx fixes generally are rejected by the flight plan handling
computer for IFR plans. You can insert lat/lons in (easier by
DUAT, convincing a FSS guy to do it is a bit tedious).

> The reason for asking is that I'm wondering if a VFR flight plan with
> detailed routing that lists specific waypoints and fixes can be easily
> converted to IFR without changing the routing, should weather or other
> factors mandate a switch to IFR for the flight.
>

You can put anything you want on a VFR route. It's not used for
anything. it just goes into the computer and stays there until
you don't show up at your destination and close the plan. They
start calling around looking for you and if that doesn't yield
anything, they might start looking at your route of flight filed.
But really, they look more at how much fuel you claimed you had
and where you could have possibly gone based on where you started
from.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > So what? It's a reasonable question. What difference does it make
>> > what
>> > his motivation is for asking it?
>>
>> Trolling is not a acceptable motivation.
>
> I'm sorry, but I do not believe he is trolling. He has some annoyin
> habits to be sure, but if that were sufficient reason to kick someone
> off a newsgroup there would be no one here.
>
> rg

Ron, do me a favor and go Google mxsmaniac on Google. I especially like his
posts in the breast feeding forums. He has a history of going into
newsgroups and other online forums and obviously trying to **** people off.

[Mike Gaskins]

This is good advice guys. You'll find that he's got a history of going
into all sorts of groups and posting the same type of crap he does
here.

Photography groups
Dieting Groups
Breastfeeding groups

Even a shyness support group where he argues about how sexual
relationships are a "waste of time".

Now he's in this group trying to stir up the same stuff here. His
pattern is always the same. Basically:

"Hey guys: what is the answer to this really obvious question?"

<insert reasonable responses>

"I don't trust your answers anyways because none of you know what
you're talking about! And I don't really even care about this stuff
anyways. Flying is dangerous and a waste of time!"

Just ignore him and he'll go away (or in reality elsewhere) in time.

Mike Gaskins

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Ron, do me a favor and go Google mxsmaniac on Google. I especially like his
> posts in the breast feeding forums. He has a history of going into
> newsgroups and other online forums and obviously trying to **** people off.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Mike Gaskins" > wrote:

> Just ignore him and he'll go away (or in reality elsewhere) in time.

When it goes away, please note that it might return. It is a repeat offender.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Cirrus]

A Lieberma wrote:


What made it worse was my only safe
> haven (rec.aviation.ifr) now has been smitten by this troll.....
>
> But I am doing good.... Still have not made a direct reply :-)
>
> Allen

Keep up the good fight Allen :)
I know what you mean. It's so hard to restrain and not fall for his
manipulation game.

[Ron Natalie]

Ron Garret wrote:
FS.
>
> He can't afford a real plane, so he's doing the best he can. He asks
> reasonable questions under the circumstances.
>
No he's not. If he was doing the best he could, people wouldn't
be ass ****ed at him. The issue is that not only does he not fly
a real aircraft, he won't bother to do any learning other than
pestering people on this group. He has been referred to reasonable
texts (and a wealth of information could be had just by downloading
an reading the AIM which is FREE).

I only answer when I fee the question is actually useful to people
who are trying on this group.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Garret wrote:

> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>So what? It's a reasonable question. What difference does it make what
>>>his motivation is for asking it?
>>
>>Trolling is not a acceptable motivation.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I do not believe he is trolling. He has some annoyin
> habits to be sure, but if that were sufficient reason to kick someone
> off a newsgroup there would be no one here.
>
> rg

Well, except for you and me.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Natalie wrote:


>>
>
> You can put anything you want on a VFR route. It's not used for
> anything. it just goes into the computer and stays there until
> you don't show up at your destination and close the plan. They
> start calling around looking for you and if that doesn't yield
> anything, they might start looking at your route of flight filed.
> But really, they look more at how much fuel you claimed you had
> and where you could have possibly gone based on where you started
> from.

With intelligent preflight planning and intelligent use of RNAV, the
odds of SAR finding a downed VFR aircraft aircraft are very good
especially when the ELT doesn't work.

[Doug[_1_]]

Although lat/long is technically acceptable, my experience is ATC
doesn't like them and dont know where they are. Also, they don't know
how to call them out. ATC prefers VOR/DME, which you can use the GPS to
find if you know how. But the best thing IS VOR's or airports. Although
intersections SHOULD be ok, I've seen ATC not know where some are. The
VFR waypoints are excluded, I guess they didn't want to go there. Best
thing these days seems to be to file direct and take what you get
UNLESS you fly it all the time and KNOW what ATC is going to give you,
in which case, file THAT.

It's a bit of a quagmire and I've filed one route, gotten my ground
clearance for a second route and then once in the air, been told to
fly a third. Which is why I just file direct (which is the fastest
anyway).

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> With intelligent preflight planning and intelligent use of RNAV, the
> odds of SAR finding a downed VFR aircraft aircraft are very good
> especially when the ELT doesn't work.

If I put specific waypoints on my VFR flight plan and fly them, I'd
expect that SAR would be able to go directly to the point where I went
down, or nearly so. That's a lot easier and faster than searching
thousands of square miles.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>> With intelligent preflight planning and intelligent use of RNAV, the
>> odds of SAR finding a downed VFR aircraft aircraft are very good
>> especially when the ELT doesn't work.
>
> If I put specific waypoints on my VFR flight plan and fly them, I'd
> expect that SAR would be able to go directly to the point where I went
> down, or nearly so. That's a lot easier and faster than searching
> thousands of square miles.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

SAR is not going to be able to go directly to the point where you went down.
All they know is when where you started from, where you were going, and how
you were planning to get there. When SAR is initiated 1/2 hour after you
don't arrive, they have the entire route to search. But, at least they have
a route to search. The closer to the center line of that planned route you
are when you go down, the better the odds of them finding you. Lat/long
fixes or formal NAVAID fixes, it doesn't really matter.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Mxsmanic]

Travis Marlatte writes:

> SAR is not going to be able to go directly to the point where you went down.
> All they know is when where you started from, where you were going, and how
> you were planning to get there.

They know all the position reports I made, too. So they should be
able to extrapolate from my last position report and narrow things
down considerably.

> The closer to the center line of that planned route you
> are when you go down, the better the odds of them finding you. Lat/long
> fixes or formal NAVAID fixes, it doesn't really matter.

Which is where RNAV comes in handy. I would tend to favor RNAV for
any long flight, even VFR. I can look out the window and see if the
scenery matches what I expect based on the navigation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Travis Marlatte wrote:


>
> SAR is not going to be able to go directly to the point where you went down.
> All they know is when where you started from, where you were going, and how
> you were planning to get there. When SAR is initiated 1/2 hour after you
> don't arrive, they have the entire route to search. But, at least they have
> a route to search. The closer to the center line of that planned route you
> are when you go down, the better the odds of them finding you. Lat/long
> fixes or formal NAVAID fixes, it doesn't really matter.
>

For VFR flight plans LAT/LON has a huge advantage over published fixes
in many parts of the Western U.S., both to avoid restricted areas and
remain in valleys (ala Eastern California, most of Nevada, and other
states with similar topography.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> For VFR flight plans LAT/LON has a huge advantage over published fixes
> in many parts of the Western U.S., both to avoid restricted areas and
> remain in valleys (ala Eastern California, most of Nevada, and other
> states with similar topography.

I sometimes fix up user waypoints for precisely this reason. When you
can't fly at FL340, it's handy to be able to plan a route that avoids
really high terrain, but the official waypoints are sometimes too thin
on the ground to serve the purpose.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:32:43 GMT, "Travis Marlatte"
> wrote:

>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Sam Spade writes:
>>
>>> With intelligent preflight planning and intelligent use of RNAV, the
>>> odds of SAR finding a downed VFR aircraft aircraft are very good
>>> especially when the ELT doesn't work.
>>
>> If I put specific waypoints on my VFR flight plan and fly them, I'd
>> expect that SAR would be able to go directly to the point where I went
>> down, or nearly so. That's a lot easier and faster than searching
>> thousands of square miles.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>SAR is not going to be able to go directly to the point where you went down.
>All they know is when where you started from, where you were going, and how
>you were planning to get there. When SAR is initiated 1/2 hour after you

You are making an optimistic assumption that SAR is going to be
initiated a 1/2 hour after you don't arrive.

Real case in point. I arrived at Lee Gilmer Memorial (KGVL) NE of
Atlanta around 11:00 PM. The phones weren't working. It was
something line 2 or 3 hours later before I actually was able to
contact FSS (I could have driven in and knocked on the door faster).
to close my flight plan. I apologized for being late. The comment
was something to the effect of "Late? Oh, yah, I guess you are a
little on the late side".

IOW in some cases SAR may not even be alerted unless some one calls
and wonders where you are.

>don't arrive, they have the entire route to search. But, at least they have
>a route to search. The closer to the center line of that planned route you
>are when you go down, the better the odds of them finding you. Lat/long

and those odds are pretty poor if most of the route is heavily wooded
terrain.

It's fairly well populated around here. A Bonanza went down headed
for MtPleasant. It's less than 20 miles from Midland to Mt Pleasant.
The pilot and copilot had walked out of the swamp and called well
before the plane was found. OTOH it was snowing like made. They went
directly over our house and went down about 6 miles west or here.

>fixes or formal NAVAID fixes, it doesn't really matter.

With a flight plan AND flight following they are more likely to know
where you might be as the loss of transponder signal normally gets
their attention. Coming out of Kansas scooting under some really
nasty stuff I had precipitation static build up to the point where I
had to cycle the electrical system. As I recall they were calling
me when the radios came back to life.

However in *some* areas FSS is far more alert to over due aircraft
than others. Due to Denver ATC rerouting me around some *areas* and
threading our way between clouds containing tornados and giant hail I
was a bit behind schedule arriving at Jefferson County, Jefco (BJC). I
made certain to call as soon as we were on the ground. They were
still upset as I was pushing the limits.

I hate to burst that warm and fuzzy feeling bubble <:-)) but SAR may
not even be notified until the next day depending on conditions.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Marty Shapiro]

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:32:43 GMT, "Travis Marlatte"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>>> Sam Spade writes:
>>>
>>>> With intelligent preflight planning and intelligent use of RNAV,
>>>> the odds of SAR finding a downed VFR aircraft aircraft are very
>>>> good especially when the ELT doesn't work.
>>>
>>> If I put specific waypoints on my VFR flight plan and fly them, I'd
>>> expect that SAR would be able to go directly to the point where I
>>> went down, or nearly so. That's a lot easier and faster than
>>> searching thousands of square miles.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>>
>>SAR is not going to be able to go directly to the point where you went
>>down. All they know is when where you started from, where you were
>>going, and how you were planning to get there. When SAR is initiated
>>1/2 hour after you
>
> You are making an optimistic assumption that SAR is going to be
> initiated a 1/2 hour after you don't arrive.
>
> Real case in point. I arrived at Lee Gilmer Memorial (KGVL) NE of
> Atlanta around 11:00 PM. The phones weren't working. It was
> something line 2 or 3 hours later before I actually was able to
> contact FSS (I could have driven in and knocked on the door faster).
> to close my flight plan. I apologized for being late. The comment
> was something to the effect of "Late? Oh, yah, I guess you are a
> little on the late side".
>
> IOW in some cases SAR may not even be alerted unless some one calls
> and wonders where you are.
>
>>don't arrive, they have the entire route to search. But, at least they
>>have a route to search. The closer to the center line of that planned
>>route you are when you go down, the better the odds of them finding
>>you. Lat/long
>
> and those odds are pretty poor if most of the route is heavily wooded
> terrain.
>
> It's fairly well populated around here. A Bonanza went down headed
> for MtPleasant. It's less than 20 miles from Midland to Mt Pleasant.
> The pilot and copilot had walked out of the swamp and called well
> before the plane was found. OTOH it was snowing like made. They went
> directly over our house and went down about 6 miles west or here.
>
>>fixes or formal NAVAID fixes, it doesn't really matter.
>
> With a flight plan AND flight following they are more likely to know
> where you might be as the loss of transponder signal normally gets
> their attention. Coming out of Kansas scooting under some really
> nasty stuff I had precipitation static build up to the point where I
> had to cycle the electrical system. As I recall they were calling
> me when the radios came back to life.
>
> However in *some* areas FSS is far more alert to over due aircraft
> than others. Due to Denver ATC rerouting me around some *areas* and
> threading our way between clouds containing tornados and giant hail I
> was a bit behind schedule arriving at Jefferson County, Jefco (BJC). I
> made certain to call as soon as we were on the ground. They were
> still upset as I was pushing the limits.
>
> I hate to burst that warm and fuzzy feeling bubble <:-)) but SAR may
> not even be notified until the next day depending on conditions.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>

The classic case for SAR not finding a downed aircraft is the Lear
which crashed on an ILS approach to LEB (Lebanon, NH) on December 24, 1996.
The wreckage wasn't found until November 11, 1999.

---
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Travis Marlatte]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:32:43 GMT, "Travis Marlatte"
> > wrote:
>>SAR is not going to be able to go directly to the point where you went
>>down.
>>All they know is when where you started from, where you were going, and
>>how
>>you were planning to get there. When SAR is initiated 1/2 hour after you
>
> You are making an optimistic assumption that SAR is going to be
> initiated a 1/2 hour after you don't arrive.

I understand. As usual, I over-generalized an important fact in my haste to
make a different point.

To summarize the points that I agree with in this thread:

1) Lat/Longs or other RNAV waypoints are fine for VFR fixes in a flight
plan. Nobody is going to look at them until it's necessary anyway.
2) Lat/Longs or other RNAV waypoints will allow you to fly as directly to
your destination as possible while avoiding obstacles/terain/airspace and
still give ATC and SAR a clear definition of your flight path.
3) Position reports on a VFR flight plan increase the likelyhood of being
found quickly by SAR

Conclusion: None of the above is worth it to me. I sure as heck am not going
to plot out lat/longs and program my GPS with them. Kind of takes the fun
out of flying VFR, doesn't it?
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger ]
> Posted At: Sunday, December 03, 2006 10:31 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Fixes provided in routing for IFR flight plans - VFR
> waypoints okay?
> Subject: Re: Fixes provided in routing for IFR flight plans - VFR
> waypoints okay?
>
....
>
> You are making an optimistic assumption that SAR is going to be
> initiated a 1/2 hour after you don't arrive.
>
> Real case in point. I arrived at Lee Gilmer Memorial (KGVL) NE of
> Atlanta around 11:00 PM. The phones weren't working. It was
> something line 2 or 3 hours later before I actually was able to
> contact FSS (I could have driven in and knocked on the door faster).
> to close my flight plan. I apologized for being late. The comment
> was something to the effect of "Late? Oh, yah, I guess you are a
> little on the late side".
>
> IOW in some cases SAR may not even be alerted unless some one calls
> and wonders where you are.
>
....

Before we all invested in ELTs and the system began to rely on that
technology, the practice was to start a communications search 1/2 hour
after the flight planned time of arrival. Of course that pre-supposes a
flight plan. The communications search went on for about 3 hours before
Air Rescue and Recovery Service (ARRS) was notified. ARRS then would
make another set of communications checks to the phone numbers of the
airport managers along the route of flight. That pre-supposes they had
the managers' contact information. Finally, about 6 hours later a Civil
Air Patrol wing would be notified and they could typically mount an
operation within 3 hours -- at least an initial route search.

The ELT has improved on all of these times and flight watch is more
popular now to the point that the alerting practice can get quite
protracted. The sense of urgency isn't there unless accompanied by a
failure to report to flight watch or an ELT signal -- which had to be
done to live with the staffing reductions promised by the new ELT
technology...

It's almost a Catch-22 situation.

[Bob Moore]

Jim Carter wrote
> The ELT has improved on all of these times and flight watch is more
> popular now to the point that the alerting practice can get quite
> protracted. The sense of urgency isn't there unless accompanied by a
> failure to report to flight watch or an ELT signal -- which had to be
> done to live with the staffing reductions promised by the new ELT
> technology...

As Bob Gardner previously pointed out in another thread, or perhaps over
on RAP, Flight Watch has no function other than the collection and
dissimination of aviation weather. Although generally co-located with a
Flight Service Station, they are not one and the same. Pilots should not
be using Flight Watch as a substitute for a FSS.

Bob Moore

[Sam Spade]

Roger wrote:


>
> IOW in some cases SAR may not even be alerted unless some one calls
> and wonders where you are.

No doubt about it. A prudent course of action is to have someone who
gives a damn about you to make the wakeup call. But, once that is done,
SAR will benefit greatly from a precise VFR track.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

You're right Bob - I mis-spoke - I should have said "flight following".

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Moore ]
> Posted At: Monday, December 04, 2006 7:53 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Fixes provided in routing for IFR flight plans - VFR
> waypoints okay?
> Subject: Re: Fixes provided in routing for IFR flight plans - VFR
> waypoints okay?
>
> Jim Carter wrote
> > The ELT has improved on all of these times and flight watch is more
> > popular now to the point that the alerting practice can get quite
> > protracted. The sense of urgency isn't there unless accompanied by a
> > failure to report to flight watch or an ELT signal -- which had to
be
> > done to live with the staffing reductions promised by the new ELT
> > technology...
>
> As Bob Gardner previously pointed out in another thread, or perhaps
over
> on RAP, Flight Watch has no function other than the collection and
> dissimination of aviation weather. Although generally co-located with
a
> Flight Service Station, they are not one and the same. Pilots should
not
> be using Flight Watch as a substitute for a FSS.
>
> Bob Moore

[buttman]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> But I am doing good.... Still have not made a direct reply :-)
>
> Allen

but apparently not good enough to not make 29587234059863245874 snarly
indirect replies @_@