KCHD to KMYF

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

No, I don't care what frequency, if any, FlightPrep gives since the depiction
on the chart is wrong to start with.

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?

The frequencies are of no interest while doing initial planning and are
irrelevant until the route has been cross checked against the raster charts
and finalized.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Kimmy Boyer wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 3, 9:36*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.

What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?

I will answer that after you answer my questions.

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

wow isn't RAP great.

No wonder most of us have left.

OK, question for the morons...I'm a pilot and aircraft owner. Altho
I've never flown between Phoenix & Montgomery, but I have flown
in Arizona (and Phoenix in particular), is my recommendation any
less valid or more valid?

And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion. I checked my charts and
such and agree with his recommendation. I don't say this because I
trust the US Feds on routes but looking at the geography, MOAs and
such, it does make sense.

[I really can't believe that not only am I agreeing with Mx but
supporting him...)

On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:30:58 -0400, Morgans wrote:

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

Simple.

There are a lot of bored people on RAP. Many of them too old to fly so
they come here for something to do.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

wrote:
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.

Absolutely, but Jim, the OP did not provide on-board equipment nor
skill or confidence level. As such, the response for V66 is reasonable.
It may not be the most practical, but it is reasonable.

Now, given your rationale, the route you describe is also reasonable.
Aint no one single correct answer (despite what the FAA claims)

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

A mix of nonsense and half truths.

Class E is the most relaxed of all controlled airspace.

Between 1,200 AGL and 10,000 MSL the VFR minimums for Class E and G are
the same.

You are not required to talk to anyone in Class E and if you stay below
10,000 feet you don't need to have either a radio or transpoder except
for a few select areas.

You need a clearance to fly IFR.

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.

No, Victor airways do not "provide obstacle clearance" and since the
airways are defined by navaids that only provide horizontal information,
it would be impossible for them to do so.

Obstacle clearance is provided by looking at the sectional, the same as
for any other route.

The depiction on the sectional for airways has the added convenience of
showing a minimum altitude for VOR reception.

Saying a Victor airway provides obstacle clearance is like saying Class
E airspace provides obstacle clearance as they are both defined as
starting no lower than 1200 AGL.

Your faith in GPS-only navigation is worrisome.

Tough luck. GPS is here to stay and you are assuming I don't use the VOR
system.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Blanche writes:

And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion. I checked my charts and
such and agree with his recommendation. I don't say this because I
trust the US Feds on routes but looking at the geography, MOAs and
such, it does make sense.

Thanks.

I really can't believe that not only am I agreeing with Mx but
supporting him...)

It might be easier to believe if you remember that I'm just passing
information on, not making it up. I didn't cook up the route myself. I looked
at the charts, too, and I looked at existing flight plans, and (long ago) I
experimented with trying other routes, etc. Hundreds of flights follow this
route every day, so why should I reinvent the wheel? It jumps out at you from
the chart; it's obviously intended to get you efficiently and safely to SoCal.

It mystifies me that anyone would insist on rejecting what is obviously the
most practical solution. I think that it may be a rejection of authority,
which is a very dangerous trait in a pilot.

As it happens, I'm passing over Dateland at this very minute, FL320 on J2 to
KSAN. Recently the LYNDI2 has replaced the BARET4 as the preferred arrival, so
I filed that.

Blanche wrote:
Kimmy Boyer wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 3, 9:36?am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.

What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?

I will answer that after you answer my questions.

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

wow isn't RAP great.

No wonder most of us have left.

OK, question for the morons...I'm a pilot and aircraft owner. Altho
I've never flown between Phoenix & Montgomery, but I have flown
in Arizona (and Phoenix in particular), is my recommendation any
less valid or more valid?

And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion. I checked my charts and
such and agree with his recommendation. I don't say this because I
trust the US Feds on routes but looking at the geography, MOAs and
such, it does make sense.

[I really can't believe that not only am I agreeing with Mx but
supporting him...)

There is nothing "wrong" with flying Victor airways.

The issue is the assignment by MX of some mystical qualities of "safeness"
to them that doesn't exist.

Flying on Victor airways is no safer than flying any other legal route.

The "best" route depends on your equipment and your goals, and can
include anything from minimum fuel to wanting to see some scenic landmark
from the air.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

No, I don't care what frequency, if any, FlightPrep gives since the depiction
on the chart is wrong to start with.

But you apparently didn't care about the frequency before you learned of the
error, either.

The frequencies are of no interest while doing initial planning and are
irrelevant until the route has been cross checked against the raster charts
and finalized.

Checking the frequency would have told you something was wrong.

And why select NYL if BZA is right next to it and happens to be on V66 and
clear of all MOAs and restricted areas? What does picking a different station
prove?

Blanche wrote:

Absolutely, but Jim, the OP did not provide on-board equipment nor
skill or confidence level. As such, the response for V66 is reasonable.
It may not be the most practical, but it is reasonable.

Now, given your rationale, the route you describe is also reasonable.
Aint no one single correct answer (despite what the FAA claims)

Either route will get you from A to B legally and safely.

What I disagree with is MX's assignment of some mystical qualities of
"rightness" and "safeness" of flying Victors that don't exist.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Class E is the most relaxed of all controlled airspace.

So what?

Between 1,200 AGL and 10,000 MSL the VFR minimums for Class E and G are
the same.

Not during the day. Class G has 1-mile visibility minimum during the day;
Class E has three miles.

You are not required to talk to anyone in Class E ...

Unless you are within the vicinity of an airport, that is.

... and if you stay below
10,000 feet you don't need to have either a radio or transpoder except
for a few select areas.

Which areas are those? What happens above 10,000 feet?

You need a clearance to fly IFR.

Not in Class G. You only need a clearance in controlled airspace, which Class
G is not.

No, Victor airways do not "provide obstacle clearance" and since the
airways are defined by navaids that only provide horizontal information,
it would be impossible for them to do so.

Of course they provide obstacle clearance, otherwise they wouldn't be much use
for IFR.

Obstacle clearance is provided by looking at the sectional, the same as
for any other route.

Obstacle clearance under VFR is provided by looking out the window. Under IFR,
clearance is provided by looking at IFR charts, not VFR sectionals. The IFR
charts show minimum enroute altitudes for airways and minimum safe altitudes
for off-airway routing.

The depiction on the sectional for airways has the added convenience of
showing a minimum altitude for VOR reception.

Where?

Saying a Victor airway provides obstacle clearance is like saying Class
E airspace provides obstacle clearance as they are both defined as
starting no lower than 1200 AGL.

No, a Victor airway has been surveyed and planned specifically to be clear of
obstacles. Class E in general provides no such assurance.

Tough luck. GPS is here to stay and you are assuming I don't use the VOR
system.

The only tough luck is for pilots who have no clue about how GPS works or what
its limitations and vulnerabilities are. Some of them have already learned
about these the hard way.