KCHD to KMYF

On May 3, 11:37*am, Kimmy Boyer wrote:

Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
moron.

Neither is a moron. Both have perspectives drawn
from their specific field of experience. While
simulation *is not "flying", wouldn't interest me or
most people in this forum, it is recognized by the
FAA such that the establishment of certificated
training centers are to be developed under
14 CFR part 142 for the advancement of this
technology, so, apparently it's relevant, but
only to a degree.

That being said, here in _recreational_ aviation
piloting the emphesis most surely would be on
real life factors of unpredictability and how we
react to and manage them.

The best answer as to creating an optimum
flight plan is readily available within the annals
of aviation study literature.

wow isn't RAP great.

Evidently. You posted.

---
Mark

writes:

You are playing a computer game. You are not in a real airplane or in real
airspace and you are not using any real government resource.

It is impossible for you to do anything that isn't "safe" while playing
a computer game.

You are delusional.

Is there something wrong with flying V66 between Phoenix and Montgomery Field?

writes:

Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
it is just less than optimal.

If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD-NYL-KMYF and
at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.

KCHD.KNYL.KMYF is 274.5 nm, whereas KCHD.GBN.V66.BARET is 274.2 nm, so your
route is actually longer than mine. Additionally, your route doesn't use any
VORs, so you either must trust your GPS completely or look for KNYL on the
ground as you pass over it. And KNYL is partially in the Dome MOA (ceiling
6000), whereas my route doesn't touch any MOAs and only grazes R-2311 if you
are flying quite low.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about this. Which is not surprising,
since the V66 route was designed by specialists.

Going over GBN is not necessary.

Your route takes you eight nautical miles north of GBN.

That's if I were using VOR navigation.

Your route does not include any VORs.

If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.

Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
course to go direct to KMYF if possible.

To go direct, you'll need authorizations for R-2308B, R-2308A, R-2306A,
R-2507S, R-2512, and R-2510A, responsibility for which is partly Los Angeles
Center and partly Yuma Range Control. In exchange for these six different
authorizations, you'll gain a total of 4.4 nautical miles as compared with
your route over NYL (less for the standard V66 route), which is a gain of
1.6%.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about your route. In fact, it's worse
than the normal V66 route.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
it is just less than optimal.

If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD-NYL-KMYF and
at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.

KCHD.KNYL.KMYF is 274.5 nm, whereas KCHD.GBN.V66.BARET is 274.2 nm, so your
route is actually longer than mine.

Actually, the distances are 273.8 and 273.4 respectfully.

Additionally, your route doesn't use any
VORs, so you either must trust your GPS completely or look for KNYL on the
ground as you pass over it. And KNYL is partially in the Dome MOA (ceiling
6000), whereas my route doesn't touch any MOAs and only grazes R-2311 if you
are flying quite low.

Wrong, I said NYL, which is a VOR, and said nothing about GPS.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about this. Which is not surprising,
since the V66 route was designed by specialists.

Actually, if you want to fly V66 until BARET, the route is
KCHD-GBN-MOHAK-BZA-IPL-BARET-KMYF

Going over GBN is not necessary.

Your route takes you eight nautical miles north of GBN.

Which is not the same as going over GBN.

That's if I were using VOR navigation.

Your route does not include any VORs.

Wrong, NYL is a VOR.

If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.

Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
course to go direct to KMYF if possible.

To go direct, you'll need authorizations for R-2308B, R-2308A, R-2306A,
R-2507S, R-2512, and R-2510A, responsibility for which is partly Los Angeles
Center and partly Yuma Range Control. In exchange for these six different
authorizations, you'll gain a total of 4.4 nautical miles as compared with
your route over NYL (less for the standard V66 route), which is a gain of
1.6%.

Big woof.

I never said anything about going direct as the real world likelyhood of all
those areas being cold is about the same as hitting Lotto.

What I said was, if I were using GPS I would plan a waypoint roughly between
BZA and NYL. That would avoid all restricted areas.

Then enroute I would check if it were possible to transition any of the
restricted areas and change course FROM THAT POINT. I didn't say FROM THAT
POINT the first time since any real pilot would know that is implied by
"checking enroute".

And, looking at it closely, the GPS waypoint would be set just slightly
south of where the R-2307 area turns north, thus avoiding all restricted
areas for a total distance of about 272 nm.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about your route. In fact, it's worse
than the normal V66 route.

The main reason to avoid V66 is the other traffic on the route.

The main reason to use V66 is it keeps a less than accurate pilot well away
from the restricted areas.

If you have GPS, know how to use it, and are uncertain of the state of all
the restricted areas, the GPS route is the shortest possible IF you wind up
being unable to transition any of them.

If you don't have GPS and are a low time pilot with marginal navigation skills,
I would then suggest taking the slighly longer VOR to VOR route.

A big part of real flying is planning alternatives and flying in a manner
appropriate for your equipment and skill level.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

Wrong, NYL is a VOR.

Wrong again. NYL is a Tacan (at least according to Airnav). KNYL is the
Yuma airport. BZA is the nearby VOR on V66.

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.

Mike

writes:

Wrong, I said NYL, which is a VOR, and said nothing about GPS.

NYL is a TACAN only. You'd have a hard time tuning it in your small civilian
aircraft. And it's low-altitude, so you'd have a hard time receiving it
outside the standard service volume, which isn't big enough to provide you
with en-route navigation.

You could try BZA, which is just to the north, and is part of V66 (meaning
that reception is fairly well assured along all parts of the airway for which
it is used--another advantage of airways).

Actually, if you want to fly V66 until BARET, the route is
KCHD-GBN-MOHAK-BZA-IPL-BARET-KMYF

Uh, that's what V66 means: all of those intermediate fixes are on V66.

Wrong, NYL is a VOR.

No. See above.

Big woof.

You don't need any authorizations to fly V66.

I never said anything about going direct as the real world likelyhood of all
those areas being cold is about the same as hitting Lotto.

So you'd have to fly around them, anyway, making your route even longer, and
rendering your navigation more complex.

What I said was, if I were using GPS I would plan a waypoint roughly between
BZA and NYL. That would avoid all restricted areas.

So would BZA, if you're on V66.

Then enroute I would check if it were possible to transition any of the
restricted areas and change course FROM THAT POINT.

To gain 90 seconds of flight time?

And, looking at it closely, the GPS waypoint would be set just slightly
south of where the R-2307 area turns north, thus avoiding all restricted
areas for a total distance of about 272 nm.

A three-mile savings.

The main reason to avoid V66 is the other traffic on the route.

How much traffic is that? If you're VFR, you can ask for flight following,
and see and avoid. If you're IFR, you're better off still.

The main reason to use V66 is it keeps a less than accurate pilot well away
from the restricted areas.

Ah, so only the _bad_ pilots use the airways, eh? Good pilots spend an extra
hour planning and navigating a more direct route so that they can save 60
seconds. Right.

If you have GPS, know how to use it, and are uncertain of the state of all
the restricted areas, the GPS route is the shortest possible IF you wind up
being unable to transition any of them.

The savings is insignificant, hardly enough to justify the effort--and you'd
better be certain that your GPS is right on the money.

If you don't have GPS and are a low time pilot with marginal navigation skills,
I would then suggest taking the slighly longer VOR to VOR route.

A big part of real flying is planning alternatives and flying in a manner
appropriate for your equipment and skill level.

Uh-huh. A big part of safe flying is learning the procedures and accepting
them, instead of always trying to be Maverick with home-baked shortcuts. A lot
of people have worked really hard to build a network of airways with
guaranteed navigation performance and safety--why the insistence on rolling
your own?

It's a bit like trying to calculate fuel to the last drop in order to save a
few cents, rather than calculate it fairly accurately and then allow generous
safety margins. And we all know that fuel exhaustion is one of the most common
causes of accidents in general aviation.

Mike Adams writes:

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.

A lot depends on who makes the suggestion. The same suggestion will generate
different amounts of sophomoric noise in replies depending on who makes it.

Mike Adams wrote:
wrote:

Wrong, NYL is a VOR.

Wrong again. NYL is a Tacan (at least according to Airnav). KNYL is the
Yuma airport. BZA is the nearby VOR on V66.

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

It looks like an email is in order.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"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

Mxsmanic wrote:


Uh-huh. A big part of safe flying is learning the procedures and accepting
them, instead of always trying to be Maverick with home-baked shortcuts. A lot
of people have worked really hard to build a network of airways with
guaranteed navigation performance and safety--why the insistence on rolling
your own?

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.