Can ATC assign an airway if filed direct?

In article ,
(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:

Roy Smith wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:

If you file to a VOR direct, can ATC clear you along an airway
instead, and expect you to look up the airways? In other words, how
important is to carry an enroute chart if you don't plan on using
airways?

You're joking, right?

ATC can give you any clearance they want. You don't have to accept it,
and can't if you don't have the equipment to fly it (i.e. route requires
DME and you don't have DME). But, you'd look pretty stupid saying,
"unable airways, negative chart".

Roy

No, I am not joking. Let me put the question differently. Does ATC
always assume that you have a VOR receiver and the ability to fly
airways? Since there is no specific equipment suffix for a VOR, it
appears to me that they expect all aircraft to be equipped with a VOR
receiver unless we tell them otherwise.

Ah, that's a slightly different question. I recoiled at your idea of
not carrying an en-route chart.

It is certainly legal to fly IFR without a VOR receiver, but it's pretty
much taken for granted that you've got one. It's certainly taken for
granted that you've got a chart!

What would you do if you lost comm and didn't have a VOR receiver? Do
you have some other way to navigate on your own? If you had GPS, you'd
be able to fly airways with that. ADF only? I suppose it's possible.
People used to do it. Not sure why you'd want to do it today.

Maybe I'm just not understanding the situation. Are you saying that you
just want to file GPS direct destination and leave the chart at home to
save weight? In which case I'm back to recoiling :-)

Roy Smith wrote in
:

What would you do if you lost comm and didn't have a VOR receiver? Do
you have some other way to navigate on your own? If you had GPS,
you'd be able to fly airways with that. ADF only? I suppose it's
possible. People used to do it. Not sure why you'd want to do it
today.

You could fly the airways more or less with the GPS. Older ones that do
not have the actual airways shown would be a problem, since the magnetic
heading to the VOR and the VOR heading to the VOR are frequently off by a
significant amount.

Either way you need charts, since lots of airways have bends in them.

FWIW, a few years ago I tried saving a lot of time on a route by throwing
into the route VOR -- NDB1 -- NDB2 -- VOR. ATC had big trouble with it,
the smaller terminal NDB's were not in their computer and they had no idea
where they were. Actually, it worked well... they got frustrated and just
gave me direct. G

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

"James M. Knox" wrote in message
...
Roy Smith wrote in
:

What would you do if you lost comm and didn't have a VOR receiver? Do
you have some other way to navigate on your own? If you had GPS,
you'd be able to fly airways with that. ADF only? I suppose it's
possible. People used to do it. Not sure why you'd want to do it
today.

You could fly the airways more or less with the GPS. Older ones that do
not have the actual airways shown would be a problem, since the magnetic
heading to the VOR and the VOR heading to the VOR are frequently off by a
significant amount.

Either way you need charts, since lots of airways have bends in them.

FWIW, a few years ago I tried saving a lot of time on a route by throwing
into the route VOR -- NDB1 -- NDB2 -- VOR. ATC had big trouble with
it,
the smaller terminal NDB's were not in their computer and they had no idea
where they were. Actually, it worked well... they got frustrated and just
gave me direct. G

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

I have a hunch that the terminal NDBs could not be found in the computer
because they are *terminal* NDBs, and have a limited service volume, making
them unusable for route navigation. Just a thought.

Harvey

Roy Smith wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:

Roy Smith wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:

If you file to a VOR direct, can ATC clear you along an airway
instead, and expect you to look up the airways? In other words, how
important is to carry an enroute chart if you don't plan on using
airways?

You're joking, right?

ATC can give you any clearance they want. You don't have to accept it,
and can't if you don't have the equipment to fly it (i.e. route requires
DME and you don't have DME). But, you'd look pretty stupid saying,
"unable airways, negative chart".

Roy

No, I am not joking. Let me put the question differently. Does ATC
always assume that you have a VOR receiver and the ability to fly
airways? Since there is no specific equipment suffix for a VOR, it
appears to me that they expect all aircraft to be equipped with a VOR
receiver unless we tell them otherwise.

Ah, that's a slightly different question. I recoiled at your idea of
not carrying an en-route chart.

It is certainly legal to fly IFR without a VOR receiver, but it's pretty
much taken for granted that you've got one. It's certainly taken for
granted that you've got a chart!


Yes, that is what I thought. ATC expects you to have a VOR and
navigate along airways even though neither one is legally required. So
we agree on that.


What would you do if you lost comm and didn't have a VOR receiver? Do
you have some other way to navigate on your own? If you had GPS, you'd
be able to fly airways with that. ADF only? I suppose it's possible.
People used to do it. Not sure why you'd want to do it today.

I am not following the argument. If you filed direct using /G (or ADF
or something else), and you lose comm, just continue flying direct to
your cleared destination. Why would you have to switch to airways if
you lose comm?



Maybe I'm just not understanding the situation. Are you saying that you
just want to file GPS direct destination and leave the chart at home to
save weight? In which case I'm back to recoiling :-)

No, to the contrary, I carry both charts (sectional and the LL
enroute). But I find the sectional chart far more valuable when flying
direct. I am not suggesting that one should leave the LL behind, but
my LL chart hardly gets any use on a direct navigation flight. The
sectional has almost all of the information you need. However, the LL
may become useful if ATC redirects you along airways (hence the reason
for my earlier question), or if you have to look up ARTCC boundaries,
or if you have to look up which airports have IAPs. Am I missing
anything else? Is there any other essential information that is not on
the sectional? I think it would be nice if there was a single chart
that contained both information. And I think they have been attempting
to do that in recent years, as I have noticed more and more airway
intersections shown on the sectional charts.

On a related note, when VORs are decommissioned in the not too distant
future and replaced by direct navigation, I imagine that all the LL
charts will start to look like a VFR sectional.

Andrew Sarangan wrote (in a response to Roy Smith):

I am not following the argument. If you filed direct using /G (or ADF
or something else), and you lose comm, just continue flying direct to
your cleared destination. Why would you have to switch to airways if
you lose comm?

Where you're likely to have to switch to airways isn't lost comm, it's lost
radar. If ATC can't see you, they need to have you and your fellow travellers
all marching in lockstep over defined reporting points, hence airways.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
om...

Yes, that is what I thought. ATC expects you to have a VOR and
navigate along airways even though neither one is legally required. So
we agree on that.


If your clearance includes airways then navigating along airways is legally
required. If you're not prepared to navigate along airways then you're not
prepared to operate IFR in controlled airspace in the US.

In article ,
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Roy Smith wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:

Roy Smith wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:

If you file to a VOR direct, can ATC clear you along an airway
instead, and expect you to look up the airways? In other words, how
important is to carry an enroute chart if you don't plan on using
airways?

You're joking, right?

ATC can give you any clearance they want. You don't have to accept it,
and can't if you don't have the equipment to fly it (i.e. route requires
DME and you don't have DME). But, you'd look pretty stupid saying,
"unable airways, negative chart".

Roy

No, I am not joking. Let me put the question differently. Does ATC
always assume that you have a VOR receiver and the ability to fly
airways? Since there is no specific equipment suffix for a VOR, it
appears to me that they expect all aircraft to be equipped with a VOR
receiver unless we tell them otherwise.

Ah, that's a slightly different question. I recoiled at your idea of
not carrying an en-route chart.

It is certainly legal to fly IFR without a VOR receiver, but it's pretty
much taken for granted that you've got one. It's certainly taken for
granted that you've got a chart!


Yes, that is what I thought. ATC expects you to have a VOR and
navigate along airways even though neither one is legally required. So
we agree on that.


You can also look at it from the ATC point of view at:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182651-1.html

Roy Smith wrote:

It is certainly legal to fly IFR without a VOR receiver, but it's pretty
much taken for granted that you've got one. It's certainly taken for
granted that you've got a chart!

The national airspace system is still predicated upon VOR being the primary,
non-radar en route navigation system. That will change, but it hasn't yet. The
section in part 91 that requires you to have equipment appropriate to the routes
to be flown presumes VOR equippage. No, it doesn't say that, because such is
the way of many FARs. You either comply with the obvious or you have to be armed
with all the countless policy documents with which the FAA operates.

For whatever it's worth, following is from Pargraph 813 of FAA Order 8260.19C,
Flight Procedures and Airspace, the gudiance material for instrument procedures
designers:

.. "Dual Minimums. Dual minimums, when authorized, shall be entered in boxes
constructed below the preprinted minimums section. Dual minimums shall not be
authorized unless a 60 foot operational advantage is obtained or a reduction in
visibility can be achieved. To avoid proliferation of dual minimums, all IFR
aircraft are assumed to have at least one VOR receiver. Dual minimums based on a
stepdown fix combined with local and remote altimeter settings could result in
four sets of minimums. However, only two sets of minimums shall be published on
the 8260 forms. The combinations authorized a minimums with and without a
stepdown fix; or minimums with local and remote altimeter settings."

This is available on the Summit Aviation Reference Library.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
om...

No, I am not joking. Let me put the question differently. Does ATC
always assume that you have a VOR receiver and the ability to fly
airways? Since there is no specific equipment suffix for a VOR, it
appears to me that they expect all aircraft to be equipped with a VOR
receiver unless we tell them otherwise.


The US National Airspace System is based on NDB, VOR, and localizer. There
are no equipment suffixes for these because you're assumed to have them if
you're operating IFR, even though they are not explicitly required by
regulation.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
om...


The US National Airspace System is based on NDB, VOR, and localizer. There
are no equipment suffixes for these because you're assumed to have them if
you're operating IFR, even though they are not explicitly required by
regulation.

I've noticed that! A couple times in the last 5 years I've been told
to go direct to an NDB. I don't have anyway to find NDBs (well, ok
GPS, but otherwise... ) Do you think there will be a formal
"forgiving" of the NDB assumption by the FAA or will it just become
another GPS waypoint?