KCHD to KMYF

writes:

Interesting as Golden Eagle FlightPrep shows it as a VORTAC on their
charts.

What VOR frequency do they give for it?

writes:

Actually Victor airways were developed to separate the bug smashers from
everyone else and to keep them from controlled airspace.

I'm not sure what you are saying. The Victor airways provide safe IFR routing
below 18,000 feet and are always controlled airspace. Each airway extends from
the base of controlled airspace up to 18,000. Of course, they can also be used
for VFR. So I don't quite see how they separate bug smashers from everyone
else.

There is nothing intrinsic about them that provides "guaranteed navigation
performance and safety" other than the accuracy of VOR's and with the
invention of GPS they are becoming obsolete.

The guarantees concern obstacle clearance and navaid reception. The VORs that
define the airways can be reasonably expected to remain in range throughout
the airways, whereas when cooking up one's own route via ground navaids, one
must take into account the service volume of the stations. Additionally, the
airways are guaranteed to be free of obstacles throughout their width above a
certain published altitude, and the navaids are guaranteed to be within range
beyond a certain altitude as well (which may be higher than the obstacle
clearance altitude).

Thus, the airways provide more than just VOR navigation--they also provide
obstacle clearance, and that remains true whether you are flying VFR or IFR,
with VORs or GPS. The government goes to a great deal of trouble to provide
obstacle clearance and reception range on published airways; it isn't simply
drawing lines on a chart between VORs and proclaiming them airways.

Finally, VORs are hardly becoming obsolete, no matter what fantasies the FAA
might entertain. The President has already destroyed one safety backup by
shutting down LORAN; if the same is done for VORs, there will be no backup at
all for GPS, and that will be a very bad thing, as GPS is trivially easy to
jam and spoof.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Interesting as Golden Eagle FlightPrep shows it as a VORTAC on their
charts.

What VOR frequency do they give for it?

Don't know, don't care.

The fact that it is shown as a VORTAC on their vector charts is enough for
me to send in a bug report, which I have already done.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Actually Victor airways were developed to separate the bug smashers from
everyone else and to keep them from controlled airspace.

I'm not sure what you are saying. The Victor airways provide safe IFR routing
below 18,000 feet and are always controlled airspace. Each airway extends from
the base of controlled airspace up to 18,000. Of course, they can also be used
for VFR. So I don't quite see how they separate bug smashers from everyone
else.

Victor airways are Class E airspace.

There is nothing intrinsic about them that provides "guaranteed navigation
performance and safety" other than the accuracy of VOR's and with the
invention of GPS they are becoming obsolete.

The guarantees concern obstacle clearance and navaid reception. The VORs that
define the airways can be reasonably expected to remain in range throughout
the airways, whereas when cooking up one's own route via ground navaids, one
must take into account the service volume of the stations. Additionally, the
airways are guaranteed to be free of obstacles throughout their width above a
certain published altitude, and the navaids are guaranteed to be within range
beyond a certain altitude as well (which may be higher than the obstacle
clearance altitude).

As I said, the invention of GPS is making Victor airways obsolete.

There is nothing about a Victor airway that guarantees obstacle clearance
as they are defined by systems that only provide horizontal information.

What guarantees being free of obstacles is looking at a sectional, which
is the same whether you are using Victor airways or GPS.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Victor airways are Class E airspace.

Yes. And Class E is controlled airspace. That's one of the distinctions
between airways and off-airway areas, and indeed, Victor airways are one of
the reasons for Class E. You need a clearance to fly IFR in Class E, and the
VFR minimums are more stringent. You can fly IFR without a clearance in Class
G, and the minimums for VFR are less strict. You can even do aerobatics in
Class G, with certain restrictions.

As I said, the invention of GPS is making Victor airways obsolete.

Since the airways provide obstacle clearance, they are unlikely to become
obsolete. That clearance is independent of the navigation method used.

Your faith in GPS-only navigation is worrisome.

There is nothing about a Victor airway that guarantees obstacle clearance
as they are defined by systems that only provide horizontal information.

No, they are defined as three-dimensional spaces that are clear of obstacles
within specified distances and tolerances. That's why all the Victor airways
have published minimum altitudes for every segment of the airway. Above those
altitudes, there should be no obstacles, so they are safe for IFR flight.

This remains true for these airways even if you choose to navigate through
them with GPS instead of VORs.

What guarantees being free of obstacles is looking at a sectional, which
is the same whether you are using Victor airways or GPS.

Looking at a chart tells you the minimum altitudes for the airways, and that's
what protects you.

writes:

Don't know, don't care.

So you're planning a route that uses this station for navigation, and you
don't care about the station frequency? How do you plan to tune to the station
without this information.

The fact that it is shown as a VORTAC on their vector charts is enough for
me to send in a bug report, which I have already done.

Good for you, but how can you look at a VORTAC and not notice the frequency?

TACANs don't have a VOR frequency, which is a really, really good hint that
they shouldn't be used for VOR navigation. On the standard NACO IFR charts,
this station has only a channel, without a VOR frequency, so you know right
away that it's different (it uses a different symbol, too).

On May 3, 10:30*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Mike Adams" wrote

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
for
argument's sake? *What a waste of bandwidth.

*No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. *Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. *It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. *He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments..

--
Jim in NC

It's human nature to correct the ignorant, if indeed that
is the case. Can a simulator enthusiast offer information
to actual pilots is the question. Ostracism should be
reserved for individuals not interested in sincere
participation. If he is that, then you are right.

---
Mark

On May 4, 8:26*am, Mark wrote:
On May 3, 10:30*pm, "Morgans" wrote:



"Mike Adams" wrote

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
for
argument's sake? *What a waste of bandwidth.

*No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. *Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. *It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. *He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.
--
Jim in NC

It's human nature to correct the ignorant, if indeed that
is the case. *Can a simulator enthusiast offer information
to actual pilots is the question. Ostracism should be
reserved for individuals not interested in sincere
participation. If he is that, then you are right.

---
Mark

Is deliberate ignorance really ignorance? After all these months/
years do you think that he is really interested in 'sincere'
participation? Seems to me he is always after the conflict, not
looking for any truth or conclusion. Which, by the way, is a typical
aspect of a troll.

Keep on feeding him, and falling for his baits, and you'll have to
keep on 'correcting' him when he is uncorrectable. He has no interest
of learning anything from you. He just wants to provoke you into an
argument.

From the very first post in this thread, you could tell it was bait.
He knew he would stoke the fire by answering before any real pilots.
Which is why he went out of his way to not post any of his typical
'questions', and pretended to look like he knew what he was talking
about. It wasn't until after you guys took the bait that he started
spouting the 'tell me what am I saying that is wrong' tripe,
successfully derailing the conversation.

Some people never learn it seems. Sorry.

Mike

I actually do have a question for the knowledgeable people here
though.

I'm still a newbie student pilot, so don't have a bunch of
experience. Out here in the midwest we don't have a bunch of the
restricted airspace like apparently out in the desert. Especially the
ones in question here that look like heavily clustered, and ranging
from 0 AGL to 80000 MSL. When calling the controlling agency is it
typical to be able to ask clearance into them all of them at once? Or
must it be done piecewise. Any risk of getting cleared into some of
them, then getting told the next is 'active' and having to adjust for
it? Could be problematic especially for the clustered restricted like
2306A, 2308A, 2308B, etc.

Is it typical for these clusters to have two different controlling
agencies? Probably not I hope.

Seems to someone like me not used to dealing with confusion like these
heavily clustered areas that it would be a pain to deal with.

Mike

Am 04.05.2010 04:30, schrieb Morgans:

No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat
you with experience."

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.

"Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)