I don't know how to flight plan any more

"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)?

"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

"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?

"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

"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?

"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

"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?

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.

"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?