(Greg) wrote in message . com...
Just tell them. "Cessna 1234 is VFR to Mattoon via Bloomington"
(although as I mentioned in another post, why not do Victor airways
if you aren't going direct?)

Hmmmm...Never considered victor airways...not sure what the advantage
is...is there one? Seems like it is a longer route and more dangerous
because of increased traffic in a smaller space...am I wrong?

Well this might be more information than you want .

Yes, Victor airways will be longer than the direct route for your
specific destination this time (about 9% longer to be exact)

However, they would be shorter than the alternate route you suggested
(via Bloomington).

For longer trips, the difference between a GPS direct route
and a judicious choice of Victor airways and VOR direct routing
is often trivial -- 1-2%.

I don't think Victor airways have more traffic at low altitudes
now-a-days. I believe they are actually relatively sparsely populated
because most people are going GPS direct . The same does
not apply to VORs which are near major flight training centers
or are fixes for instrument approaches. Know what those are
in your area and avoid.

In general, Victor airways have several advantages.

One advantage of Victor airways is positive course guidance
from your Nav radios (esp. above the minimum enroute altitute
which is printed on IFR charts). They solve your original
problem of ensuring you'll keep clear of the TFR while giving
you less of a detour than Bloomington.

Another advantage of Victor airways is ease of route planning
if you get your hands on a set of IFR low-altitude enroute charts
(This is not difficult to obtain for free, because they expire
every 56 days. Ask a friend with an instrument rating, ask a
pilot shop if they will give you expired charts for 'educational
purposes', or post a note on an airport bulletin board.) On
the IFR chart, "minimum enroute altitudes" for nav reception,
VOR radials which are generally close to magnetic heading, and
distances for each segment are printed on the chart. So you
note them down, sum the distances, calculate a few groundspeeds
and ETAs, and you're done. (IFR low-altitude enroutes have other
handy uses for the VFR pilot. Recommend 'em.)

If you're sitting in a warm room with a computer and printer handy,
the flight planning advantage is negligable, but if you're sitting
at a small table in a drafty and ill-lit FBO, it can be way faster.

Lastly, Victor airways give you the advantage of a route you
can easily and succinctly describe, which will be comprehensible
to ATC computers. This is helpful when requesting flight following
especially if your destination airport lies in a different Center
and might not be in the ATC computers. (It is a scandal that
apparently my used Palm VIIx has more memory than the computers being
used in ATC Centers but I digress)

If you're operating IFR, a route filed by airways makes it easier
for ATC to understand what you might do in the event of a Comm failure,
and often easier for you to transition in an orderly way from the
enroute structure to the approach.

The major disadvantage of Victor airways is that as you've noted,
for relatively short trips in the Midwest (say 100-200 miles) they
often do add appreciably to the length of the trip, by 10% or so.
In the East IM(L)E this is less of a factor since it seems you
can't sneeze over a chart without dripping on a VOR.

OK, if they're so great, is that how I file? Depends. For relatively
short local trips (say 200 nm) almost never. For longer trips (say
900 miles or so) we used to be GPS direct, but increasingly we're
filing VOR and Victor airway routing, especially IFR. It's really
what the system was designed for in several ways, it doesn't delay
us much, and it's sometimes easier when we have to make large detours
for wx while enroute.

BTW I really like the FBO at your airport (LOU); very nice place.
How's the restaurant on the field, though? Worth trying?

FWIW,
Sydney