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

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?

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

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

"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.

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.