Flying Thru Congested Areas

To get great circle routing which is easy to put on a chart
out of DUATS, select the "direct routing for GPS/Loran".

Must have missed this option. Thanks.


I recommend purchasing a "low altitude enroute planning chart"
(or something like that) from your favorite chart shop.

Great idea.


In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
trip and makes filing flight plans easier.


It makes filing flight plans easier than what? vivtor airway routes?

Seems a direct file is the easiest. I assume I can just file my route
as "KISW direct KHEF" (Wisconsin Rapids, WI to Manassas, VA).

Sami
what you can do for long flights is if you dont have it, and since your
getting the 430 anyways you may want it, go to
http://www.garmin.com/products/gns430/
and download the simulator for the 430
you can put in your route direct, see how it looks and amend it from there
then put it in duats for wind, time and fuel consumption.

Its a good program to have and mess with so you can get familiar with the
430 anyways.
I have a garmin handheld 295, I do my route on it, then put it in duats,
then when I get to my plane I put the route from the 295 into my 430.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:


To get great circle routing which is easy to put on a chart
out of DUATS, select the "direct routing for GPS/Loran".

Must have missed this option. Thanks.


I recommend purchasing a "low altitude enroute planning chart"
(or something like that) from your favorite chart shop.

Great idea.


In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
trip and makes filing flight plans easier.


It makes filing flight plans easier than what? vivtor airway routes?

Seems a direct file is the easiest. I assume I can just file my route
as "KISW direct KHEF" (Wisconsin Rapids, WI to Manassas, VA).

Jeff,

I have already been playing with the 430 simulator to get familiar with
the controls. I never thought of using it for flight planning. Neat
idea! Would would be even cooler is if you could plan your trip on the
simulator, write to one of those small memory sticks, and then stick the
stick intot he Garmin 430 and have it download your plan. Perhaps, the
next generation will do that too.

-Sami

Jeff wrote:
Sami
what you can do for long flights is if you dont have it, and since your
getting the 430 anyways you may want it, go to
http://www.garmin.com/products/gns430/
and download the simulator for the 430
you can put in your route direct, see how it looks and amend it from there
then put it in duats for wind, time and fuel consumption.

Its a good program to have and mess with so you can get familiar with the
430 anyways.
I have a garmin handheld 295, I do my route on it, then put it in duats,
then when I get to my plane I put the route from the 295 into my 430.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:


To get great circle routing which is easy to put on a chart
out of DUATS, select the "direct routing for GPS/Loran".

Must have missed this option. Thanks.


I recommend purchasing a "low altitude enroute planning chart"
(or something like that) from your favorite chart shop.

Great idea.


In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
trip and makes filing flight plans easier.


It makes filing flight plans easier than what? vivtor airway routes?

Seems a direct file is the easiest. I assume I can just file my route
as "KISW direct KHEF" (Wisconsin Rapids, WI to Manassas, VA).

I dont know why garmin couldnt make something like that possible, there is an
empty slot in the 430 for future options.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

Jeff,

I have already been playing with the 430 simulator to get familiar with
the controls. I never thought of using it for flight planning. Neat
idea! Would would be even cooler is if you could plan your trip on the
simulator, write to one of those small memory sticks, and then stick the
stick intot he Garmin 430 and have it download your plan. Perhaps, the
next generation will do that too.

-Sami

Jeff wrote:
Sami
what you can do for long flights is if you dont have it, and since your
getting the 430 anyways you may want it, go to
http://www.garmin.com/products/gns430/
and download the simulator for the 430
you can put in your route direct, see how it looks and amend it from there
then put it in duats for wind, time and fuel consumption.

Its a good program to have and mess with so you can get familiar with the
430 anyways.
I have a garmin handheld 295, I do my route on it, then put it in duats,
then when I get to my plane I put the route from the 295 into my 430.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:


To get great circle routing which is easy to put on a chart
out of DUATS, select the "direct routing for GPS/Loran".

Must have missed this option. Thanks.


I recommend purchasing a "low altitude enroute planning chart"
(or something like that) from your favorite chart shop.

Great idea.


In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
trip and makes filing flight plans easier.


It makes filing flight plans easier than what? vivtor airway routes?

Seems a direct file is the easiest. I assume I can just file my route
as "KISW direct KHEF" (Wisconsin Rapids, WI to Manassas, VA).

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message ...

In truth, for longer trips, we file VOR routing (not necessarily
airways) more and more often, because with judicious use of
direct segments it usually adds very little (maybe 1%) to the
trip and makes filing flight plans easier.

It makes filing flight plans easier than what? vivtor airway routes?

Than filing GPS direct, but having to find ways to define any
detours we need to make or to define our destination if it isn't
in the computers of the ATC facilities along the route of flight.
(in case it wasn't clear, I was talking about filing low altitude
victor airways with some direct VOR segments, not about filing VOR
direct vs victor airways -- often moot point)

I'm also talking about IFR flights here, mostly.

Seems a direct file is the easiest. I assume I can just file my route
as "KISW direct KHEF" (Wisconsin Rapids, WI to Manassas, VA).

Sure you can. And given that I think Manassas, VA is a pretty large
airport, and that the midwest ATC computers don't seem to be hurting
as much for waypoint storage, you might even get to leave it at that
(unless of course traffic to Manassas is routinely put on a STAR).

But if you were going from, say, somewhere in Boston Center airspace
to Manassas, VA or to a smaller, more obscure airspace, chances are
excellent the Center computer won't have anything defining your route
and you'll be asked for the lat-longs of your destination or for a
nearby VOR. Sometimes you'll be asked for a VOR or airport defining
your route *inside the airspace of the center you're talking to*. It
ties up frequency and it's a hassle. Then there's the question of
what to do if you lose comms, or (more common) if ATC loses radar
coverage on you.

Perhaps I should reword what I said: in terms of flight planning
and filing the route with flight service, it's easier to say
"Point A direct Point B", but procedurally it seems Victor airways/
VOR routings sometimes work more smoothly in the system and don't add
significant distance to the flight -- so why not? is the attitude
we're developing.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird"
But if you were going from, say, somewhere in Boston Center airspace
to Manassas, VA or to a smaller, more obscure airspace, chances are
excellent the Center computer won't have anything defining your route
and you'll be asked for the lat-longs of your destination or for a
nearby VOR. Sometimes you'll be asked for a VOR or airport defining
your route *inside the airspace of the center you're talking to*. It
ties up frequency and it's a hassle. Then there's the question of
what to do if you lose comms, or (more common) if ATC loses radar
coverage on you.

In my limited experience on the east coast, as long as the destination Lat
and Long are included (the Duats based stuff adds it automatically) the
direct route is generally accepted if I'm flying from something other than a
Class B or C airport with established procedures they like to follow. If
I'm flying to a B or C, I usually get cleared direct, then amended later if
again, they have some established procedures they like to follow - STARs or
undocumented

"Maule Driver" wrote in message . rr.com...
In my limited experience on the east coast, as long as the destination Lat
and Long are included (the Duats based stuff adds it automatically) the
direct route is generally accepted if I'm flying from something other than a
Class B or C airport with established procedures they like to follow.

'Tis true that Duats adds the lat-long for you. It's only when
filing direct via FSS that the issue comes up when talking to
ATC. Since we typically only file the first leg of an outbound
flight via DUATS, that means the issue comes up a lot.

'Tis also a point that per AIM, one is actually supposed to begin
and end the direct portion of the flight over a ground based
navaid, and include at least one waypoint defining the route
for each ARTCC -- I presume due to the limitations of the ATC
computers.

It still boggles my mind that our "antique" discontinued Palm VIIx
that we bought used for ~$60 can easily accept a database containing
every waypoint in the US but ARTCC computers can't.

Cheers,
Sydney

'Tis also a point that per AIM, one is actually supposed to begin
and end the direct portion of the flight over a ground based
navaid, and include at least one waypoint defining the route
for each ARTCC -- I presume due to the limitations of the ATC
computers.


I just talked to local FSS (Green Bay), and they say that filing
direct...KISW (Wisconsin Rapids) to KHEF (Manassas, VA) is an acceptable
route. The end points have ground reference NAVAIDs. But, at least
Green Bay does not think I would require intermediate waypoints. I
wonder if the AIM guidance is out of date? Besides, how does one find
out where the limits of the ARTCC's are....look for the scraggly lines
in the Enroute IFR charts? What if your direct flight does not happen
to go through a NAVAID in an ARTCC?

-Sami

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...

I just talked to local FSS (Green Bay), and they say that filing
direct...KISW (Wisconsin Rapids) to KHEF (Manassas, VA) is an acceptable
route.


That's true as long as the Minneapolis Center computer has KHEF stored, that
may not be the case.



The end points have ground reference NAVAIDs. But, at least
Green Bay does not think I would require intermediate waypoints. I
wonder if the AIM guidance is out of date? Besides, how does one find
out where the limits of the ARTCC's are....look for the scraggly lines
in the Enroute IFR charts?


Bingo.



What if your direct flight does not happen
to go through a NAVAID in an ARTCC?


All that matters is that each ARTCC computer recognizes the fixes it's asked
to process. It doesn't matter if those fixes are navaids, airports, or
intersections.

"Steven P. McNicoll"
That's true as long as the Minneapolis Center computer has KHEF stored,
that
may not be the case.

And if not, if you supply it they will take it, yes?