Flying Thru Congested Areas

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

because if its going to be bad I like being on a route flown by other
aircraft
just in case something happens.


Well, since we are talking about flying through congested areas, I think it
likely there'll be other aircraft on your route.

there are places out here where you dont get
radar coverage. You follow the airways, your good to go.


Not all airways are covered by radar.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message ...
So, would it be poor form to get an ifr clearance to get above whatever
cloud layer at your departure airport....fly VFR when you are on
top....then pickup an on-the-fly IFR again 100 miles or so before your
destinatation airport if you needed to descend back down through a cloud
layer? I am not saying this is a particularly good idea, or
particularly "polite"...I am just asking a question here.

Sami,

As long as you file the IFR flight plans with flight service
before requesting 'em, it's no problem at all nor is it
impolite AFAIK -- it's your right to use the system as
best suits you.

Another alternative can be to request the IFR clearance
"VFR on top" once you're above the clouds at your departure
airport. This keeps you in the IFR system but, since ATC
no longer has to separate you, they may be able to allow
more direct routing.

We used to fly from the midwest to Buffalo NY regularly.
Direct routing is right through the Cleveland Class B and
IFR would result in the wide-around to the south. We used
both the above techniques. In general my pref. would be
try VFR-on-top first, cancel if I can't get direct routing
I want. One time after we canceled IFR I flew into an
unforecast cloud layer. It wasn't a big deal but it would
have been easier and more straightforward to just say
"unable to maintain VFR-on-top, request IFR altitude" than
to have to file and obtain a new IFR clearance.

FWIW,
Sydney

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message ...
Well, I used the route planning software available at the duats website.
I picked the low-level victor airway that it recommended....and thats
the one that had the conflicts.

Sami,

While I use DUATS once my route is planned, the victor routing
options of Flight Planner aren't always the best airway routing.
They may send you to VORs or intersections which add miles to
your trip or keep you on airways when a direct VOR segment or
two would shorten it.

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

I recommend purchasing a "low altitude enroute planning chart"
(or something like that) from your favorite chart shop. You
can sanity check any routing and easily see where picking a
fuel stop a bit off to the west would add little but steer
you clear, or where going direct between VORs would make a
shorter route. It's also a great aid for any replanning
which might be necessary enroute due to weather.

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.

Cheers,
Sydney

In article ,
Jeff wrote:

I live in the desert, If you go down there is not alot of places to land

I fly frequently to (for example) Laughlin, Lancaster WJF, and Palm
Springs. Also been to Tucson on occasion. Where out there in the
desert is NOT a place to land? It looks just like the pictures I've
been seeing from Mars.

Jeff, you ought to get in on the 2004 Hayward Air Race. The 2004 entry
packet just came out.

http://www.hwdairrace.org/

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).

do you think so


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

because if its going to be bad I like being on a route flown by other
aircraft
just in case something happens.


Well, since we are talking about flying through congested areas, I think it
likely there'll be other aircraft on your route.

there is very few areas around there to land.
If its not a road or a dry lake bed, chances are its not going to be place to
land.
The desert here is nowhere near flat or smooth.


Craig Prouse wrote:

In article ,
Jeff wrote:

I live in the desert, If you go down there is not alot of places to land

I fly frequently to (for example) Laughlin, Lancaster WJF, and Palm
Springs. Also been to Tucson on occasion. Where out there in the
desert is NOT a place to land? It looks just like the pictures I've
been seeing from Mars.

Jeff, you ought to get in on the 2004 Hayward Air Race. The 2004 entry
packet just came out.

http://www.hwdairrace.org/

that race looks like it would be kinda fun, anyone here ever enter these?


Craig Prouse wrote:

In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Jeff, you ought to get in on the 2004 Hayward Air Race. The 2004 entry
packet just came out.

http://www.hwdairrace.org/

correct but you can also get into all the other little tidbits - but in
general

Teacherjh wrote:


there are places out here where you dont get
radar coverage. You follow the airways, your good to go.


Not all airways are covered by radar.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)