If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
An odd clearance...can anyone explain?
Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR... It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused me. The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed. So...why that clearance? What is expected of me? What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and then proceeded to ETX. But was that right? - Andrew |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gideon wrote:
Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR... It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused me. The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed. That's only good enough if it's a "fly by" waypoint :-) So...why that clearance? What is expected of me? What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and then proceeded to ETX. But was that right? I've gotten clearances like that before. What exactly what your clearanance? Was it "direct Lancaster, direct East Texas", or was it "direct Lancaster, Victor-something, East Texas"? If the latter, they need to stick Lancaster in there because the airway terminates at the VOR, not at the airport. It's somewhat of a moot point, but it keeps the flight plan computers happy. From a practical point of view, you take off, obey any DP's, then turn direct ETX. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote:
That's only good enough if it's a "fly by" waypoint :-) Hmm. I doubt I could have had enough altitude to "fly over". Is there such a thing as a "fly through" waypoint? So...why that clearance? What is expected of me? What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and then proceeded to ETX. But was that right? I've gotten clearances like that before. What exactly what your clearanance? Was it "direct Lancaster, direct East Texas", or was it "direct Lancaster, Victor-something, East Texas"? I'm not sure of the exact wording; sorry. I don't believe airways were specified, though. If the latter, they need to stick Lancaster in there because the airway terminates at the VOR, not at the airport. It's somewhat of a moot point, but it keeps the flight plan computers happy. Hmm. That does make sense, I suppose. Silly programmers. From a practical point of view, you take off, obey any DP's, then turn direct ETX. Good. - Andrew |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:58:04 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote: Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR... It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused me. The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed. So...why that clearance? What is expected of me? What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and then proceeded to ETX. But was that right? - Andrew Your clearance is supposed to start with the closest fix to the airport. As luck would have it you don't get any closer to an airport than ON the airport. Where I fly out of there is a VOR on the filed. What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After station passage continue on your normal route. When you turn to go to the first station, you may actually back track for a mile or so, but its the proper way to execute the clearance. HTH. z |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
zatatime wrote:
What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After station passage continue on your normal route. That was the possibility that I'd considered and rejected. I'd be very interested to know on what you're basing that this is correct, as it's not what I ultimately chose. As far as I know, there's no requirement that a clearance start with "the closest fix to the airport". When I depart CDW to the west, for example, the clearance starts with LANNA. If using a closer fix were necessary, we'd use the closer fix of SBJ...esp. given that LANNA is defined by a radial from SBJ, and there's no other way a /U can reasonably locate LANNA w/o passing by SBJ. More, there's nothing wrong with intercepting an airway at some point not a defined waypoint. I've been told in clearances to fly some heading or radial to intercept an airway plenty of times. So intercepting the airway between the Lancaster VOR and ETX is no great feat. Finally, turning and flying back toward the VOR on the field puts me into potential conflict with the VFR pattern. I don't know that there were any of those on the day of my visit, but I don't know that there weren't. So I decided to not do what you think is correct. So I might have been wrong. As I wrote, I'd be very interested in something which shows this to be the case (or not to be the case, of course {8^). - Andrew |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... zatatime wrote: What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After station passage continue on your normal route. That was the possibility that I'd considered and rejected. I'd be very interested to know on what you're basing that this is correct, as it's not what I ultimately chose. To me it seems the logical thing to do. Take off, establish the departure then fly to the fix in the clearance. If you have a worry about pattern traffic climb at a rate that allows you to get above the pattern as you turn back towards the VOR on the field but stay with the clearance altitude. It strikes me as a similar situation flying a missed approach when the holding fix is a VOR on the field. I think it needs working out but ignoring the clearance as you seem to have done from what you have written seems wrong. Mind you I stand to be corrected and flamed by the anti authority, pistol packing " I do what I like" brigade. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:52:44 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote: zatatime wrote: What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After station passage continue on your normal route. That was the possibility that I'd considered and rejected. I'd be very interested to know on what you're basing that this is correct, as it's not what I ultimately chose. I think it would depend on the actual clearance received. If you received a "...direct Lancaster VOR..." clearance then it would be proper to overfly the VOR. If you received a different clearance then you may not have to. In my experiences I usually get something like "climb to 2000, direct SBJ, Vsoandso to wherever...." so that is why I said what I said. As far as I know, there's no requirement that a clearance start with "the closest fix to the airport". When I depart CDW to the west, for example, the clearance starts with LANNA. If using a closer fix were necessary, we'd use the closer fix of SBJ...esp. given that LANNA is defined by a radial from SBJ, and there's no other way a /U can reasonably locate LANNA w/o passing by SBJ. This is why there was a delay in my response. I wanted to try to find some documentation to back up what I was taught, and I wasn't home much the last few days. Guess what? There isn't any! The only thing I found was a statement sating the departure point will be to a 'nearby' fix. Nowhere did I find you have to file to the closest fix. This leads me to questions since I obviously either was taught incorrectly, or interpreted what I was taught incorrectly. What is the definition of nearby? Can I file to any VOR or intersection, say, within 20 miles of my departure point? Do I have to actually file starting with a fix, or can I just file from any point on an airway? Given the busy nature of the NY area, what are my odds of getting a clearance using a fix further away? (That last one may just come from experience). A better understanding of this sure will help me pick better routes in the future since I'd always file to the closest, even if I had a crappy route to my destination. As far as your example: How the heck do you get to LANNA if your a /U? I'm thinking your clearances are Radar Vectors to LANNA then.....otherwise, as you state you have to go to SBJ VOR anyway, so why doesn't the clearance start there? More, there's nothing wrong with intercepting an airway at some point not a defined waypoint. I've been told in clearances to fly some heading or radial to intercept an airway plenty of times. So intercepting the airway between the Lancaster VOR and ETX is no great feat. Agreed, I've had similar experiences, but can you file it that way? Finally, turning and flying back toward the VOR on the field puts me into potential conflict with the VFR pattern. I don't know that there were any of those on the day of my visit, but I don't know that there weren't. So I decided to not do what you think is correct. So I might have been wrong. As I wrote, I'd be very interested in something which shows this to be the case (or not to be the case, of course {8^). To know what was right or wrong, as I said, we'd need the actual clearance. Sitting here I can't tell either way, but I am happy to have learned something, and hope anyone with answers to the questions this thread has raised in my head can be discussed. Again - sorry for the delayed response. z |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:00:21 GMT, zatatime
wrote: What is the definition of nearby? Can I file to any VOR or intersection, say, within 20 miles of my departure point? Do I have to actually file starting with a fix, or can I just file from any point on an airway? Given the busy nature of the NY area, what are my odds of getting a clearance using a fix further away? (That last one may just come from experience). A better understanding of this sure will help me pick better routes in the future since I'd always file to the closest, even if I had a crappy route to my destination. I know of no restrictions such as question. If I am flying from, let us say, KEPM to KASH, I will either file (and be cleared), as my initial fix, BRNNS (140 NM) or ENE (178 NM). And I could just as easily file direct to KASH. I don't because of overwater considerations. And those clearances were issued when I was filing /A. In a non-radar environment, though, different considerations apply. So far as the NY area, close to NYC (and I would guess in most busy airspaces), random routes are not commonly approved. I would not expect to depart KFRG cleared direct ETX, for example. There are also altitude restrictions on certain routings. However, you might be able to get something like KBDR direct ACK. And if over water distance were not a consideration, that's how I would file. --ron |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
zatatime wrote in
: What is the definition of nearby? Can I file to any VOR or intersection, say, within 20 miles of my departure point? Do I have to actually file starting with a fix, or can I just file from any point on an airway? Given the busy nature of the NY area, what are my odds of getting a clearance using a fix further away? (That last one may just come from experience). A better understanding of this sure will help me pick better routes in the future since I'd always file to the closest, even if I had a crappy route to my destination. You can file to any fix you can navigate to. I regularly file to and from lat/lon coordinates, far from any airway. It's easier for ATC if you file to a fix they have in the database, but it's not absolutely essential. You do need to be able to navigate to the fix in the event of radar failure. You may not be cleared to the fix you filed to, and perhaps won't get the route you filed. But you can *file* what you like. -- Regards, Stan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Reading Don Brown's AvWeb column, filing to lat/lon's is causes problems.
Stan Gosnell wrote: You can file to any fix you can navigate to. I regularly file to and from lat/lon coordinates, far from any airway. It's easier for ATC if you file to a fix they have in the database, but it's not absolutely essential. You do need to be able to navigate to the fix in the event of radar failure. You may not be cleared to the fix you filed to, and perhaps won't get the route you filed. But you can *file* what you like. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No SID in clearance, fly it anyway? | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 195 | November 28th 05 10:06 PM |
Clearance: Direct to airport with /U | Judah | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | February 27th 04 06:02 PM |
Q about lost comms on weird clearance | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 34 | February 2nd 04 09:11 PM |
Picking up a Clearance Airborne | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 03 01:31 AM |
Big John Bites Dicks (Security Clearance) | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 27 | August 21st 03 12:40 AM |