I don't know how to flight plan any more

[Paul Tomblin]

I'm flying to Pittsburgh this weekend, and as usual I'm going to KAGC
(Allegheny County). But for a change, instead of taking the club's Lance
I'm going to be taking the Dakota - and unlike the Lance, the Dakota has a
Garmin 530W in it. Now normally, I'd pull out the route I have on my PDA
in CoPilot, plot it on a couple of low altitude enroute charts, and file a
flight plan on those airways. But with the GPS, I'm not sure how to
proceed. Should I just draw a straight line and file direct? I know that
the straight route doesn't go through any special use airspace, and the
altitude I normally fly is high enough to clear any obstacles.

Hey, the worse that could happen is that they give me a full route
clearance, right? And I'll bet the full route clearance isn't too far off
my normal route.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not
because they are easy, but because they are hard...." - John F Kennedy

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Pick a safe altitude and file direct. I've gone from Wisconsin to
Charleston, SC direct, as well as upstate New York, and South Dakota without
a course change, all using the 530/430.

If the course ends up crossing an active MOA or restricted area, ATC will
vector you around as needed.

Who needs victor airways and VOR's? Listen to the XM radio while you're
enroute. Tune the VOR's and practice your Morse code if you have to, because
you won't need them for navigation.

It's great to hear cleared as filed when you depart on a four hour trip.

Shoot a LNAV/VNAV or LPV approach and see how steady the needles are
compared to an ILS.

Good luck and enjoy playing with the box.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Pick a safe altitude and file direct. I've gone from Wisconsin to
> Charleston, SC direct, as well as upstate New York, and South Dakota without
> a course change, all using the 530/430.
>
> If the course ends up crossing an active MOA or restricted area, ATC will
> vector you around as needed.
>
> Who needs victor airways and VOR's? Listen to the XM radio while you're
> enroute. Tune the VOR's and practice your Morse code if you have to, because
> you won't need them for navigation.


You know, the greatest danger with those systems is complacency. I did a flight
many years ago when LORAN first became available in GA aircraft and was on my
way from Charlotte, NC to Beverly, MA when the system decided to change chains
on me. Oops. There I was, not paying a whole lot of attention and all of the
sudden I didn't know where I was. I mean, I knew I was somewhere on a direct
line between CLT and BVY but that was about it. I was just daydreaming away...
something I'd never do on a conventional victor airway flight.

Not only did I have to figure out where I was, I had to figure out what happened
to the LORAN. I learned that they had chains and that they sometimes needed to
be changed depending on where you were. I managed but there were a few minutes
of sheer confusion while I was dealing with it. Thank God I wasn't in
turbulence.


> Shoot a LNAV/VNAV or LPV approach and see how steady the needles are
> compared to an ILS.


I really got to learn how to do one of those. I can still fly a good NDB
approach and my ILS work looks good, but those GPS approaches are beyond me. I
guess I need to pay an instructor. I hate that.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

I agree that the new boxes can lead to complacency, and I still tune the
VOR's along the route, although it really has become an academic exercise
only.

The 530 makes stuff like tracking an NDB outbound with a strong crosswind a
thing of the past.

The new box gives exact course guidance, suggests when to do the PT, along
with the correct headings, and will guide you to the missed approach point
with the correct holding pattern entry.

It really helps the situational awareness in IMC.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> I'm flying to Pittsburgh this weekend, and as usual I'm going to KAGC
> (Allegheny County). But for a change, instead of taking the club's Lance
> I'm going to be taking the Dakota - and unlike the Lance, the Dakota has a
> Garmin 530W in it. Now normally, I'd pull out the route I have on my PDA
> in CoPilot, plot it on a couple of low altitude enroute charts, and file a
> flight plan on those airways. But with the GPS, I'm not sure how to
> proceed. Should I just draw a straight line and file direct? I know that
> the straight route doesn't go through any special use airspace, and the
> altitude I normally fly is high enough to clear any obstacles.
>
> Hey, the worse that could happen is that they give me a full route
> clearance, right? And I'll bet the full route clearance isn't too far off
> my normal route.

If you are /G, file a flight plan as you would have an RNAV route.
Draw your lines on the chart, record the headings.
File one waypoint in each ATC sector, VOR/Radial/Distance (every 50-100
nm).

Don Brown wrote an excellent article on this topic. It is in the AvWeb
archives.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Pick a safe altitude and file direct. I've gone from Wisconsin to
>> Charleston, SC direct, as well as upstate New York, and South Dakota
>> without
>> a course change, all using the 530/430.
>>
>> If the course ends up crossing an active MOA or restricted area, ATC will
>> vector you around as needed.
>>
>> Who needs victor airways and VOR's? Listen to the XM radio while you're
>> enroute. Tune the VOR's and practice your Morse code if you have to,
>> because
>> you won't need them for navigation.
>
>
> You know, the greatest danger with those systems is complacency.

The greatest danger with ANY system is complacency.

How many pilots missed a VOR flag popping off? Etc.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>I agree that the new boxes can lead to complacency, and I still tune the
>VOR's along the route, although it really has become an academic exercise
>only.
>
> The 530 makes stuff like tracking an NDB outbound with a strong crosswind
> a thing of the past.
>
> The new box gives exact course guidance, suggests when to do the PT, along
> with the correct headings, and will guide you to the missed approach point
> with the correct holding pattern entry.
>
> It really helps the situational awareness in IMC.
And in VMC.

For example, on the traffic page, it's nice to know someone is creeping up
behind you.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Yeah - these new boxes devalue all those years of gritting teeth, sweating
brow, and puckering ... and make those learning experiences worth much
less - until the damn things quit.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>...
>
> The 530 makes stuff like tracking an NDB outbound with a strong crosswind
> a thing of the past.
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah - these new boxes devalue all those years of gritting teeth, sweating
> brow, and puckering ... and make those learning experiences worth much
> less - until the damn things quit.
>
> --
> Jim Carter
> Rogers, Arkansas

Jim, I certainly hope you cut your grass with a slingblade.

> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> ...
>>...
>>
>> The 530 makes stuff like tracking an NDB outbound with a strong crosswind
>> a thing of the past.
>>
>
>

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

C'mon Matt - power mowers are the way to go, but when they break it sure is
nice to still be in shape to use the slingblade if we have to. That was my
whole point.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yeah - these new boxes devalue all those years of gritting teeth,
>> sweating brow, and puckering ... and make those learning experiences
>> worth much less - until the damn things quit.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Carter
>> Rogers, Arkansas
>
> Jim, I certainly hope you cut your grass with a slingblade.
>
>> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>...
>>>
>>> The 530 makes stuff like tracking an NDB outbound with a strong
>>> crosswind a thing of the past.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Ross]

Jim Carter wrote:
> C'mon Matt - power mowers are the way to go, but when they break it sure is
> nice to still be in shape to use the slingblade if we have to. That was my
> whole point.
>

Our next EAA meeting is going to be on the old pilotage. Then in a
couple of weeks, we will be given a short route to fly that is not over
VORS, etc. Honor system not to turn on the GPS. Time and fuel burn will
be recorded (by refilling at the destination). The destination is lunch
and compare results. We will not know the route until that day. Should
be fun.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

(Paul Tomblin) writes:

> [...] I'm going to be taking the Dakota - and unlike the Lance, the
> Dakota has a Garmin 530W in it. Now normally, I'd pull out the
> route I have on my PDA in CoPilot, plot it on a couple of low
> altitude enroute charts, and file a flight plan on those airways.
> But with the GPS, I'm not sure how to proceed. [...]

Why not do the exact same thing - follow the airways and make
controllers' lives probably a little bit easier?

- FChE

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. ..
> C'mon Matt - power mowers are the way to go, but when they break it sure
> is nice to still be in shape to use the slingblade if we have to. That was
> my whole point.

I would hope that making the "when the damn things quit" point would be
rhetorical, just like when the engine quits, the radio quits, the vacuum
punp pukes, the NAV radio goes "boink"...

I can't see a G-V pilot keeping a sectional at their side :~)

BTW, what is the MTBF of a ADHARS versus a vacuum pump? :~)

Maybe our complaceny is more a matter of orders-of-magnitude better
reliability they provide, than the copious amounts of data they give us.

Call me careless/reckless, but if my system goes kablooie, I'd call ATC on
the handheld I always carry, declare a loss of navigation instrumentation,
and ask for vectors.

I'm probably a bit testy, but I get tired of hearing the neo-Luddite alarms.
Since there is no known instance in NTSB records of an accident after a nav
system failure, it's likely our attention should be more on losing control
when things ARE going well, such as CFIT, the (much) bigger source of
accidents.


>> Jim, I certainly hope you cut your grass with a slingblade.
>>

Oh, BTW, when I mowed my grass for the firs time this year, the mower pickup
up a small rock and took out the glass in our sliding glass door for the
patio. :~(


--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
>
> (Paul Tomblin) writes:
>
>> [...] I'm going to be taking the Dakota - and unlike the Lance, the
>> Dakota has a Garmin 530W in it. Now normally, I'd pull out the
>> route I have on my PDA in CoPilot, plot it on a couple of low
>> altitude enroute charts, and file a flight plan on those airways.
>> But with the GPS, I'm not sure how to proceed. [...]
>
> Why not do the exact same thing - follow the airways and make
> controllers' lives probably a little bit easier?
>
Because that would NOT make their lives easier (due to congestion on the
airways)?

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Matt Barrow" > writes:

> > Why not do the exact same thing - follow the airways and make
> > controllers' lives probably a little bit easier?
>
> Because that would NOT make their lives easier (due to congestion on the
> airways)?

Where did you hear that this was a serious problem (for spam cans)?
And just in case it were a problem any given day, a controller who
sees a /G can issue a direct clearance as a "decongestant".

- FChE

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Funny you should mention the G-V and sectional scenario Matt.

I had a couple of Cadets up in our CAP 182 this past February after we had
been talking about VFR charts before the flight. We had nice weather so we
were doing the KROG > KFSM > KROG seat change routine.

After checking in with Approach and getting sequenced behind a BeechJet we
heard our kerosene burning brethren call out "Hey Approach - what is that
big river down there off our port wing?" to which Approach replied
"According to my sectional, that's the Arkansas River". Utter silence...
until some wanko keyed a mic and we could all hear laughing in the
background.

I used that as an abject lesson in always knowing where you are if for no
other reason than not looking stupid.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> . ..
....
>
> I can't see a G-V pilot keeping a sectional at their side :~)
>

[Judah]

Ross > wrote in
:

> Our next EAA meeting is going to be on the old pilotage. Then in a
> couple of weeks, we will be given a short route to fly that is not over
> VORS, etc. Honor system not to turn on the GPS. Time and fuel burn will
> be recorded (by refilling at the destination). The destination is lunch
> and compare results. We will not know the route until that day. Should
> be fun.

Unless someone cheats by leaning. :)

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Back in the '70s when the colleges and universities all had flight schools
we used to have an annual competition on just this sort of precision flying
and planning. Leaning for proper speed and power was essential because it
was not unusual for the difference between first and second place to be
measured in seconds deviation from planned time enroute and tenths of
gallons of deviation from planned fuel burn.

We also used to have spot landing contests which were usually won by the
pilot that hit the exact spot the most times out of three or six or how many
ever it took to separate first and second place. Those damn chalk lines were
only about 3" wide - we used a baseline marker to lay them on the runway.
The two lines were 3 or 4 inches apart and the trick was to miss the first
line and hit the second so the target spot was only about 6 or 7 inches
wide.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
....
>
> Unless someone cheats by leaning. :)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> I would hope that making the "when the damn things quit" point would be
> rhetorical, just like when the engine quits, the radio quits, the vacuum
> punp pukes, the NAV radio goes "boink"...


Rhetorical? I've had every one of your scenarios happen to me more than once.
They do happen, maybe to you. Lightning doesn't always strike the other guy.

Bottom line: don't put all your eggs in one basket if you can help it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Funny you should mention the G-V and sectional scenario Matt.
>
> I had a couple of Cadets up in our CAP 182 this past February after we had
> been talking about VFR charts before the flight. We had nice weather so we
> were doing the KROG > KFSM > KROG seat change routine.
>
> After checking in with Approach and getting sequenced behind a BeechJet we
> heard our kerosene burning brethren call out "Hey Approach - what is that
> big river down there off our port wing?" to which Approach replied
> "According to my sectional, that's the Arkansas River". Utter silence...
> until some wanko keyed a mic and we could all hear laughing in the
> background.
>
> I used that as an abject lesson in always knowing where you are if for no
> other reason than not looking stupid.

Was he lost...or just curious?

>
> --
> Jim Carter
> Rogers, Arkansas
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
>> . ..
> ...
>>
>> I can't see a G-V pilot keeping a sectional at their side :~)
>>
>
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> I would hope that making the "when the damn things quit" point would be
>> rhetorical, just like when the engine quits, the radio quits, the vacuum
>> punp pukes, the NAV radio goes "boink"...
>
>
> Rhetorical? I've had every one of your scenarios happen to me more than
> once. They do happen, maybe to you. Lightning doesn't always strike the
> other guy.
> Bottom line: don't put all your eggs in one basket if you can help it.

Wow! From rhetoric to cliches :~)

Actually, I just check my biorythms for the day :~)

It reminds me of the threads on AP use; "So what if it fails".

Like I said, neo-luddites.

Oh..I drive in bad weather, too.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > writes:
>
>> > Why not do the exact same thing - follow the airways and make
>> > controllers' lives probably a little bit easier?
>>
>> Because that would NOT make their lives easier (due to congestion on the
>> airways)?
>
> Where did you hear that this was a serious problem (for spam cans)?
> And just in case it were a problem any given day, a controller who
> sees a /G can issue a direct clearance as a "decongestant".
>
Why do you think the terminal areas on the East Coast are pushing RNAV
departures?

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Just curious - he had the airport in sight. Still, it was a wonderful
example to drive home the concept of situational awareness I was trying to
teach the kids.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
,,,
>
> Was he lost...or just curious?
>
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. net...
> Just curious - he had the airport in sight. Still, it was a wonderful
> example to drive home the concept of situational awareness I was trying to
> teach the kids.

If situational awareness (SA) includes knowing local landmarks that at
irrelevant to the situation at hand, I'd say your concept of SA is faulty.

That maybe why G-V drivers have a far better accident record than the Rec
Aviation amatures.

> Jim Carter
> Rogers, Arkansas
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
> ,,,
>>
>> Was he lost...or just curious?

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Matt Barrow" > writes:

> > Where did you hear that this was a serious problem (for spam cans)?
> > And just in case it were a problem any given day, a controller who
> > sees a /G can issue a direct clearance as a "decongestant".
> >
> Why do you think the terminal areas on the East Coast are pushing RNAV
> departures?

Are you able to answer with something other than a rhetorical question?
Of course RNAV departures or Q-routes or whatnot are good new option.
But that hardly is evidence of a serious congestion problem with
airways for spam cans.

From my limited personal experience, whenever I fly to/near a busy
airport, US class B included, terminal controllers prefer me on
standard routes even though my birdie is /G. They issue direct if
they wish and/or if I request en route. There has been no downside to
filing airways.

- FChE

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > writes:
>
>> > Where did you hear that this was a serious problem (for spam cans)?
>> > And just in case it were a problem any given day, a controller who
>> > sees a /G can issue a direct clearance as a "decongestant".
>> >
>> Why do you think the terminal areas on the East Coast are pushing RNAV
>> departures?
>
> Are you able to answer with something other than a rhetorical question?

I was trying to get you to think, silly me.

> Of course RNAV departures or Q-routes or whatnot are good new option.
> But that hardly is evidence of a serious congestion problem with
> airways for spam cans.

If not for congestion, why are they are good alternate? Because of
CONGESTGION around the navaid used for routing.
>
> From my limited personal experience, whenever I fly to/near a busy
> airport, US class B included, terminal controllers prefer me on
> standard routes even though my birdie is /G.

Standard route, as in STAR? Note if you will, they have procedures for those
arriving on V-airways, but also for the folks that use various forms of
RNAV.

IIRC, Boston and Philly are making a big push to get folks to use RNAV so as
to enable different arrival and departure routes.

> They issue direct if
> they wish and/or if I request en route. There has been no downside to
> filing airways.

There's no downside to taking the freeways at rush hour, either. Right?

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Matt Barrow" > writes:

> > Of course RNAV departures or Q-routes or whatnot are good new option.
> > But that hardly is evidence of a serious congestion problem with
> > airways for spam cans.
>
> If not for congestion, why are they are good alternate? Because of
> CONGESTGION around the navaid used for routing. [...]

Let's stay on topic, shall we? Paul asked about en-route routing via
airways for his /G spam-can. You claimed that airway congestion was a
relevant reason to file direct, but do you have any evidence for
*that*? Jet routes, RNAV-enabled new (?!) separation of
arrival/departure routes at class B's just don't enter into it.

> > They issue direct if they wish and/or if I request en route.
> > There has been no downside to filing airways.

> There's no downside to taking the freeways at rush hour,
> either. Right?

This is a lousy analogy and you know it. You don't seem to be paying
enough attention to justify me breaking it down for you in detail.

- FChE

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > writes:
>
>> > Of course RNAV departures or Q-routes or whatnot are good new option.
>> > But that hardly is evidence of a serious congestion problem with
>> > airways for spam cans.
>>
>> If not for congestion, why are they are good alternate? Because of
>> CONGESTGION around the navaid used for routing. [...]
>
> Let's stay on topic, shall we?

It's relevant.

> Paul asked about en-route routing via
> airways for his /G spam-can. You claimed that airway congestion was a
> relevant reason to file direct, but do you have any evidence for
> *that*?

Compared to RNAV? You're going to tell me open nav is no more congested that
airways?

Why do you think RNAV was developed and accepted?

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Right - a local landmark that is a navigable waterway with barge traffic to
an inland port that stretches from the Colorado Rockies to the Mississippi
River. Silly me expecting someone to have an inkling of where or what that
might be. I stand corrected Matt.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Just curious - he had the airport in sight. Still, it was a wonderful
>> example to drive home the concept of situational awareness I was trying
>> to teach the kids.
>
> If situational awareness (SA) includes knowing local landmarks that at
> irrelevant to the situation at hand, I'd say your concept of SA is faulty.
>
> That maybe why G-V drivers have a far better accident record than the Rec
> Aviation amatures.
>
>> Jim Carter
>> Rogers, Arkansas
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>> ,,,
>>>
>>> Was he lost...or just curious?
>
>

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Because that would NOT make their lives easier (due to congestion on the
> airways)?

FWIW, I remember Dan Brown (Atlanta Center) writing on AVWeb that he only
offered direct when his workload was low. According to him, it is easier to
keep track of lots of aircraft when they move in well-known patterns than
when they move all over the screen (even if in straight lines). IIRC, he
characterized issuing direct as a favor of the controller that makes then
pilot's life easier but not necessarily the controller's.

I don't have the link handy, but he wrote about issuing direct more than
once, so it should not be too hard to find.

Anno.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. net...
> Right - a local landmark that is a navigable waterway with barge traffic
> to an inland port that stretches from the Colorado Rockies to the
> Mississippi River. Silly me expecting someone to have an inkling of where
> or what that might be. I stand corrected Matt.

If you think such Geographic Trivia is pertinent to Situational Awareness,
in instrument flight, I don't think I want to be in the same airspace.

No wonder the folks in the next step up from recreational flight have 3-5
times better safety records than the spam car drivers.

>
> --
> Jim Carter
> Rogers, Arkansas
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>> Just curious - he had the airport in sight. Still, it was a wonderful
>>> example to drive home the concept of situational awareness I was trying
>>> to teach the kids.
>>
>> If situational awareness (SA) includes knowing local landmarks that at
>> irrelevant to the situation at hand, I'd say your concept of SA is
>> faulty.
>>
>> That maybe why G-V drivers have a far better accident record than the Rec
>> Aviation amatures.
>>
>>> Jim Carter
>>> Rogers, Arkansas
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>> ,,,
>>>>
>>>> Was he lost...or just curious?
>>
>>
>
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Anno v. Heimburg" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> Because that would NOT make their lives easier (due to congestion on the
>> airways)?
>
> FWIW, I remember Dan Brown (Atlanta Center) writing on AVWeb that he only
> offered direct when his workload was low. According to him, it is easier
> to
> keep track of lots of aircraft when they move in well-known patterns than
> when they move all over the screen (even if in straight lines). IIRC, he
> characterized issuing direct as a favor of the controller that makes then
> pilot's life easier but not necessarily the controller's.

Isn't it odd, in that case, that they are pushing GPS/RNAV.

Seems contradictory, doesn't it?

[vincent p. norris]

> But with the GPS, I'm not sure how to
>proceed. Should I just draw a straight line and file direct?

Yes. ATC doesn't care how you get there, provided you do it correctly,
as you file.

Even before GPS was ever heard of, I would file "direct" to Dulles and
DCA, ratehr than by airways, because I could do that using just VORs.
I was never asked how.

vince norris

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Ah, pre-GPS. In a time long, long ago in a land far, far away....

But you're right Vince, there were many flights using VOR even ADF at night
over very long distances that filed direct back then. Seattle to Tulsa
direct listening to KVOO/1170 all night long was one such trip. Denver to
Dallas on 970 was another. Yep, direct isn't only a GPS thing at all.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>> But with the GPS, I'm not sure how to
>>proceed. Should I just draw a straight line and file direct?
>
> Yes. ATC doesn't care how you get there, provided you do it correctly,
> as you file.
>
> Even before GPS was ever heard of, I would file "direct" to Dulles and
> DCA, ratehr than by airways, because I could do that using just VORs.
> I was never asked how.
>
> vince norris

[John R. Copeland]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message ...
>> But with the GPS, I'm not sure how to
>>proceed. Should I just draw a straight line and file direct?
>
> Yes. ATC doesn't care how you get there, provided you do it correctly,
> as you file.
>
> Even before GPS was ever heard of, I would file "direct" to Dulles and
> DCA, ratehr than by airways, because I could do that using just VORs.
> I was never asked how.
>
> vince norris

Until Jeppesen stopped publishing them, I felt their VOR/DME RNAV
charts were the most useful enroute charts in existence.
They had all the VORs but no airways at all, and they had the right mix
of detail at the most useful chart scale for my taste.
I used them for more than twenty years, and I still yearn for them.

[Mxsmanic]

John R. Copeland writes:

> Until Jeppesen stopped publishing them, I felt their VOR/DME RNAV
> charts were the most useful enroute charts in existence.
> They had all the VORs but no airways at all, and they had the right mix
> of detail at the most useful chart scale for my taste.
> I used them for more than twenty years, and I still yearn for them.

Why aren't they published any more? You must not have been the only person
who found them useful.

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