Airways vs direct

[ChrisK]

This is not a really interesting story, but as a pretty low time IFR pilot, I thought I'd share.

Today I flew from CMH (in a 182/G) to LPR with ceilings at 5000' and the OAT at that level at roughly 1 degree Celsius. I had filed V5 at 3000' to avoid icing. As Columbus approach often does, they routed me north. Departure was pretty confused as to what I wanted and cleared me direct KLPR at 3000'. After a few minutes approach instructed me to climb and maintain 5000' "for the direction of flight". OROCA was 3100-3200 for the direct routing, and MOCA on V5 would have been 3000' (my filed altitude).

For a moment I had considered asking for vectors back to V5, but I elected to try 5000'. There were reports of "moderate" icing at 6000' but since the clouds really ended at 4900' it seemed that descending a few hundred feet would have been my "out", and since there was VMC underneath me and reports of no ice above 7000' I wasn't too worried.

What say you? Should I have requested a vector back to V5? Canceled and flown VFR under the overcast? I "enjoyed" the easy mode IMC along the route for the scan practice, but I think today's flight deserves some review.

 

[Henning]

I'd say you had enough 'out' to make it reasonable.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Sounds like you had a couple of pretty good 'outs".

ps--just curious, whats MEA on V5.

 

[ChrisK]

Sounds like you had a couple of pretty good 'outs".

ps--just curious, whats MEA on V5.

MEA is 3000'. I misspokeish

 

[dtuuri]

Sounds like you had a couple of pretty good 'outs".

ps--just curious, whats MEA on V5.

It's 3000' and about seven miles farther than direct. But direct from APE to KLPR goes right over my house.

dtuuri

 

[HighFlyingA380]

I agree with Henning. IMO very reasonable even in a non-FIKI aircraft. Sounds like you got some great experience out of it.

 

[dans2992]

Yep. Could have just gone to 7k also.

 

[Shawn]

Should I have requested a vector back to V5? Canceled and flown VFR under the overcast?

You can always ask to remain "as filed" or "on airway" when you get a direct to vector and give them a simple reason why so they understand why you want what you want..

I fly up and down California and almost always get a cleared "direct to". Well, at night I prefer to fly an airway that is over a freeway corridor with several airports along the route. "Direct" is over some mountainous terrain without a light in sight.

ATC would seem baffled when I would request to remain as filed until I just added a little explanation with my request.

 

[ChrisK]

You can always ask to remain "as filed" or "on airway" when you get a direct to vector and give them a simple reason why so they understand why you want what you want..

I fly up and down California and almost always get a cleared "direct to". Well, at night I prefer to fly an airway that is over a freeway corridor with several airports along the route. "Direct" is over some mountainous terrain without a light in sight.

ATC would seem baffled when I would request to remain as filed until I just added a little explanation with my request.

Honestly this is what threw me. ATC was asking me a few questions ("What heading did the tower give you? [I told them on my initial call up - he asked me again later] What is your on course heading [I read the GPS DTRK for APE VOR to enter V5]". By the time I got "cleared direct" followed by "climb to 5000'" I figured I may have done something wrong.

Next time I'll do as you suggest. I will assume that the approach controller is too busy to worry about what i filed or why =)

Appreciate all the feedback I got on this thread. I have encountered trace to light icing twice while in the right seat as a passenger, and the second time was Wednesday night [ice at night!]. Flying up here when it gets cold is no joke, and I'm trying to build my confidence while ingraining strategies for ice avoidance. I like filing IFR when I can, especially when that few-scattered layer at ~2000' seems to be moving up and down slightly like it was yesterday.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Honestly this is what threw me. ATC was asking me a few questions ("What heading did the tower give you? [I told them on my initial call up - he asked me again later] What is your on course heading [I read the GPS DTRK for APE VOR to enter V5]". By the time I got "cleared direct" followed by "climb to 5000'" I figured I may have done something wrong.

Next time I'll do as you suggest. I will assume that the approach controller is too busy to worry about what i filed or why =)

Don't read too much into ATC questions. Off airway direct routes can be anything from a friendly offer of a shortcut to being better for traffic management.

Short examples of both where ATC did the exmplaining:
• On an IFR flight from Denver to Santa Fe, ATC offered me a shortcut, adding "unless there's a reason you want to go the long way."
• On a IFR flight northeast of Denver on a severe clear VFR day, I was being vectored very far east when ATC came on to ask whether it was an IFR training flight, explaining that I had quite a bit more east to go before he could turn me northbound, adding that if it wasn't an IFR training flight, I might want to cancel IFR so I could shorten the trip.

IOW, ATC is just people too and there's no reason to be put off by a query.

 

[poadeleted20]

I wouldn't have cancelled unless I had no other choice. As for the rest, you did fine. If you'd encountered ice at 5000, you had an easy out, and the controller would not have had much choice but to grant a descent to 3000/4000 to get out of it.

BTW, I think I would have asked the controller if there were any icing reports at 5000 as soon as they instructed you to climb out of 3000. Folks usually speak up in a hurry when that happens, so the controller would have known what was happening up there. If there were any such reports, it wouldn't have been hard to convince the controller to find a lower altitude for you.

 

[Jmcmanna]

Even in Chicago, where we are bound by all sorts of agreements with neighboring facilities because of the traffic volume, we can always find an alternative. No controller in the world wants to be the one talking to a small airplane that got into some ice.

I've never had another controller deny a deviation from the published procedures due to weather before, but if I did, we would just go to plan C...

 

[John Collins]

Slightly off topic, but at the ACF meeting we heard a presentation on the criteria for developing new T routes and the elimination of most of the V routes. The new criteria will end up producing many fewer T routes as the bias will be towards point to point whenever possible with T routes only when there is a demonstrated need for structure, for example when typical flows require the use of separate routes for deconfliction.

There are currently almost 700 V routes, the vast majority of them get used fewer than a few times per day. The top 100 V routes have an average utilization of approximately 3 times a day. Most of the traffic is in the top 20 or 30 routes and even then on a few segments of the route.

 

[James_Dean]

I flew out of 4I3 yesterday and filed for 4000 for the same reasons you cited. Accepted a climb to 6000 and spent the next hour in light to moderate icing. Had to negotiate down to 4000 and then 3000 to get to visual conditions to stop the accumulation. Slugging along at 4000 having to pop the boots every 10 minutes....not fun.

Eggman

 

[dtuuri]

...at the ACF meeting we heard a presentation on the criteria for developing new T routes and the elimination of most of the V routes.The new criteria will end up producing many fewer T routes as the bias will be towards point to point whenever possible

Did they say how they expect pilots to plan their MIAs on point to point routes, many of which will be generated "on the fly" after airborne, and how will they know two-way radio communication and radar coverage exists for that entire route? Those things are already figured for airway routes, but off-airway, how do they expect pilots to accomplish it? Going direct half way, then getting reassigned back to the original proposed airway route can add miles to the flight. If you need lower, for ice, will comms be available at MIA (assuming the pilot even knows what it is there)?

dtuuri

 

[John Collins]

Did they say how they expect pilots to plan their MIAs on point to point routes, many of which will be generated "on the fly" after airborne, and how will they know two-way radio communication and radar coverage exists for that entire route? Those things are already figured for airway routes, but off-airway, how do they expect pilots to accomplish it? Going direct half way, then getting reassigned back to the original proposed airway route can add miles to the flight. If you need lower, for ice, will comms be available at MIA (assuming the pilot even knows what it is there)?

dtuuri

No. Pilots routinely do this now when they file airport to airport direct. I rarely use airways here in the Southeast, although I normally use an along the route VOR to anchor my routes on longer flights. Airways will be sparse in the future as the number of VOR's are reduced. VOR's will be considered a backup system when GPS is down for some reason.

 

[dtuuri]

No. Pilots routinely do this now when they file airport to airport direct. I rarely use airways here in the Southeast, although I normally use an along the route VOR to anchor my routes on longer flights. Airways will be sparse in the future as the number of VOR's are reduced. VOR's will be considered a backup system when GPS is down for some reason.

I figured they haven't thought it out well enough. Everything goes back to FAR 91.185. If they want to clear you for a route you can't do under 91.185, then they should rewrite the lost comm rules first. Just because pilots typically haven't been thinking it through (I guess, but they should) doesn't mean the government shouldn't either.

dtuuri

 

[azure]

I'm not sure I understand the issue. I'm cleared to fly a route, whether it's direct or defined by intermediate waypoints. Lost comm, my altitudes are cleared, expected, MIA, which generally pilots don't know anyway so on an airway we use the MEA. On an off-airway route I would use the OROCA in place of MEA. If I'm lost comm on a direct route my cleared altitude will usually be higher than the OROCA anyway. I'll admit I don't plan for GPS outage and it's possible I could end up with no usable backup nav signal somewhere along that route if I stay at my cleared/expected altitude. But that's a double failure anyway if I'm already lost comm (unless my alternator is gone, which is why people invest in handheld nav/comms).

What am I missing?

 

[John Collins]

I'm not sure I understand the issue. I'm cleared to fly a route, whether it's direct or defined by intermediate waypoints. Lost comm, my altitudes are cleared, expected, MIA, which generally pilots don't know anyway so on an airway we use the MEA. On an off-airway route I would use the OROCA in place of MEA. If I'm lost comm on a direct route my cleared altitude will usually be higher than the OROCA anyway. I'll admit I don't plan for GPS outage and it's possible I could end up with no usable backup nav signal somewhere along that route if I stay at my cleared/expected altitude. But that's a double failure anyway if I'm already lost comm (unless my alternator is gone, which is why people invest in handheld nav/comms).

What am I missing?

Nothing.

 

[John Collins]

I figured they haven't thought it out well enough. Everything goes back to FAR 91.185. If they want to clear you for a route you can't do under 91.185, then they should rewrite the lost comm rules first. Just because pilots typically haven't been thinking it through (I guess, but they should) doesn't mean the government shouldn't either.

dtuuri

Not sure where you are going with this tangent. Why do you conclude that 91.185 can't be complied with on a point to point route? What is wrong with OROCA? With currently available terrain systems, both certified and supplemental, keeping 1000 feet above the nearest obstacle is not difficult.

 

[Henning]

Not sure where you are going with this tangent. Why do you conclude that 91.185 can't be complied with on a point to point route? What is wrong with OROCA? With currently available terrain systems, both certified and supplemental, keeping 1000 feet above the nearest obstacle is not difficult.

But then people need that level of equipment.

 

[James331]

If I'm IFR I'm direct 95% of the time, if I can't get direct and it's VFR I'm VFR with FF, I'll pick up my IFR when needed or when outside of whatever is causing the routing.

If I'm IFR and on airways, I'm not a happy camper

 

[John Collins]

But then people need that level of equipment.

A low altitude enroute chart and knowing your position?

 

[dtuuri]

Not sure where you are going with this tangent. Why do you conclude that 91.185 can't be complied with on a point to point route? What is wrong with OROCA? With currently available terrain systems, both certified and supplemental, keeping 1000 feet above the nearest obstacle is not difficult.

To be clear, it's your tangent, I'm merely asking how much thought is being given to it. None, it seems.

ATC at the departure end, unless I'm missing a change in their ability (possible, that's why I'm asking), can clear aircraft direct without knowing the implications of such a clearance downstream. The route could penetrate restricted areas, for instance. That could result in belated revised routing that would increase the miles flown over the bygone rescinded airways route. Same for encountering a non-radar area (which is required for random routes). If the pilot can plan around those then there'd be no negative impact from being revised.

As for MEA vs. MIA, MEA assures 2-way radio communication exists, so makes flight planning simple. MIAs are unique to the specific route and could be any one of an infinite number of values, depending on at which point the aircraft is cleared direct. So, what enables a pilot to know the minimum altitudes that will assure communications on all those route possibilities at all those MIAs? It would be a bummer to plan on flying at MIA to stay out of the ice only to be denied because of comm limitations well after takeoff. EDIT: Or to find out ATC's version of MIA is far higher than the pilot-planned one due to sectorizing.

As to 91.185, it seems like ATC will be relying on real-time, on-the-fly revisions of the route via 2-way radio as the situation evolves. As Henning points out, not all pilots would know the MIA as they proceed, since pilots typically, "Ask for direct, fly what they get." Loss of comms could leave them at an inappropriate altitude in that case and maybe route too (P-56, etc.?).

So, I think 91.185 is due for an update before dismissing the VOR airway system. At the very least I'd like to see where they've considered every possible conflict with it and shown why it doesn't need updating in a non-airway environment. I don't see evidence where it's been considered so far.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

A low altitude enroute chart and knowing your position?

John, the "position" is off route between the airways on lo charts.

dtuuri

 

[John Collins]

To be clear, it's your tangent, I'm merely asking how much thought is being given to it. None, it seems.

ATC at the departure end, unless I'm missing a change in their ability (possible, that's why I'm asking), can clear aircraft direct without knowing the implications of such a clearance downstream. The route could penetrate restricted areas, for instance. That could result in belated revised routing that would increase the miles flown over the bygone rescinded airways route. Same for encountering a non-radar area (which is required for random routes). If the pilot can plan around those then there'd be no negative impact from being revised.

As for MEA vs. MIA, MEA assures 2-way radio communication exists, so makes flight planning simple. MIAs are unique to the specific route and could be any one of an infinite number of values, depending on at which point the aircraft is cleared direct. So, what enables a pilot to know the minimum altitudes that will assure communications on all those route possibilities at all those MIAs? It would be a bummer to plan on flying at MIA to stay out of the ice only to be denied because of comm limitations well after takeoff. EDIT: Or to find out ATC's version of MIA is far higher than the pilot-planned one due to sectorizing.

As to 91.185, it seems like ATC will be relying on real-time, on-the-fly revisions of the route via 2-way radio as the situation evolves. As Henning points out, not all pilots would know the MIA as they proceed, since pilots typically, "Ask for direct, fly what they get." Loss of comms could leave them at an inappropriate altitude in that case and maybe route too (P-56, etc.?).

So, I think 91.185 is due for an update before dismissing the VOR airway system. At the very least I'd like to see where they've considered every possible conflict with it and shown why it doesn't need updating in a non-airway environment. I don't see evidence where it's been considered so far.

dtuuri

What is new? Point to point is done all the time now a days. Where I fly, it is the main method. Airways are not being used as it is. I haven't used a VOR in at least 5+ years other than for practice.

I just can't understand what 91.185 has to do with what we already do. Facts are the airways are already there and are not being used because pilots prefer point to point, some were not used once in an entire year.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

....................... What is wrong with OROCA? ..................

Let's consider the example of V85 between Billings, Montana & Cody, Wyoming. MEA (8400')........OROCA at Billings is 11,500, OROCA at the Cody VOR/DME is 12,400' (at the Cody Yellowstone Regional Airport OROCA is 15,500). What is wrong with OROCA is; it's often significantly higher than the route specific minimum instrument altitude.

 

[HighFlyingA380]

...Facts are the airways are already there and are not being used because pilots prefer point to point, some were not used once in an entire year.

Based on this and your other post earlier, it sounds like the FAA tracks the usage of Victor airways? Filed vs. cleared?

 

[dtuuri]

What is new?

You reported the loss of Victor airways, did you not? That's a game changer. Not all pilots are willing to cede route planning to the whims of ATC nor are prescient enough to know where sector MIA boundaries and communication antennas are located, so they can properly pre-plan their flight. Those pilots want to know in advance that they can complete the flight as planned sans radio if required. In fact, 91.185 requires it.

Point to point is done all the time now a days. Where I fly, it is the main method. Airways are not being used as it is. I haven't used a VOR in at least 5+ years other than for practice.

I don't care what anybody else does if it isn't right. Planning for lost comms is the right way unless you get the rules changed to accommodate your own practice.

I just can't understand what 91.185 has to do with what we already do. Facts are the airways are already there and are not being used because pilots prefer point to point, some were not used once in an entire year.

Please explain how you will comply with a direct route clearance after lost comms when the route goes through a restricted area and a mountan top and you aren't equipped with terrain mapping. Or how you plan to descend out of the icing when ATC denies your requested altitude because it's below their video mapped MIA sector altitude, but your own preflight planning indicated a much lower altitude complies with 91.177.

Putting it another way, the current system depends on preflight planning based on surveyed routes for obstructions and communications. Any off-route segments are supposed to be planned in compliance with 91.177 and approved based on radar coverage, communications and service volumes. It's (flight plan) the fallback procedure under 91.185. Going to a non-airway point to point system becomes a dynamic, instantly changing one. That's ok as long as the rules support it and the needed information exists to plan for (accept/reject) the changes 'on the fly'. You could mandate that everybody IFR is equipped as you apparently are, I suppose, but I don't see how that solves the knowledge of radar areas, comm areas, and MIA sector altitudes needed to choose a route that can be flown efficiently and safely.

I say, "Back to the drawing board, FAA."

dtuuri

 

[John Collins]

Let's consider the example of V85 between Billings, Montana & Cody, Wyoming. MEA (8400')........OROCA at Billings is 11,500, OROCA at the Cody VOR/DME is 12,400' (at the Cody Yellowstone Regional Airport OROCA is 15,500). What is wrong with OROCA is; it's often significantly higher than the route specific minimum instrument altitude.

VORs are not being eliminated in the mountainous areas. These airways will likely remain in place.

 

[John Collins]

You reported the loss of Victor airways, did you not? That's a game changer. Not all pilots are willing to cede route planning to the whims of ATC nor are prescient enough to know where sector MIA boundaries and communication antennas are located, so they can properly pre-plan their flight. Those pilots want to know in advance that they can complete the flight as planned sans radio if required. In fact, 91.185 requires it.

There will be a minimum operational network of airways as a backup. In the Western Mountains, there will not be much change. With respect to airways in the rest of the NAS, with some exceptions, most are not being used today. Where they are used is in high traffic areas where the flow of traffic needs to be controlled.

I don't care what anybody else does if it isn't right. Planning for lost comms is the right way unless you get the rules changed to accommodate your own practice.

This has really demonstrated itself to be a major minor no problem in the current system where pilots file point to point or direct.

Please explain how you will comply with a direct route clearance after lost comms when the route goes through a restricted area and a mountan top and you aren't equipped with terrain mapping. Or how you plan to descend out of the icing when ATC denies your requested altitude because it's below their video mapped MIA sector altitude, but your own preflight planning indicated a much lower altitude complies with 91.177.

Putting it another way, the current system depends on preflight planning based on surveyed routes for obstructions and communications. Any off-route segments are supposed to be planned in compliance with 91.177 and approved based on radar coverage, communications and service volumes. It's (flight plan) the fallback procedure under 91.185. Going to a non-airway point to point system becomes a dynamic, instantly changing one. That's ok as long as the rules support it and the needed information exists to plan for (accept/reject) the changes 'on the fly'. You could mandate that everybody IFR is equipped as you apparently are, I suppose, but I don't see how that solves the knowledge of radar areas, comm areas, and MIA sector altitudes needed to choose a route that can be flown efficiently and safely.

You must not have been flying recently.:wink2: /A and /U are the odd balls now a days. There is not much consideration being given to them as the remaining airway system will not be very kind to someone who wants to travel from A to B in a reasonable fashion. VOR support in the NAS will be within 77 NM at 5000 feet, there will be a ground based ILS or VOR approach that has no dependencies on any other system within 100 NM of any point in the NAS. The unspoken message that we are moving to a space based navigation system and an aircraft without IFR GPS including at least LNAV approach capability is going to be inconvenient at best and have very little utility at worst.

I say, "Back to the drawing board, FAA."

dtuuri

We disagree. I don't find your arguments convincing. You can't be convinced it is not an issue by me and unless you bring a new and convincing argument to the table, restating your existing ones will not change my mind. Bring your concerns to someone who can do something about it, that is what I have been doing on issues with the system that I think need changing.

 

[John Collins]

Based on this and your other post earlier, it sounds like the FAA tracks the usage of Victor airways? Filed vs. cleared?

Not sure about filed, but they do track them based on actual use and keep data down to the count of how many times each route segment is used.

 

[dtuuri]

We disagree. I don't find your arguments convincing. You can't be convinced it is not an issue by me and unless you bring a new and convincing argument to the table...

And you haven't convinced me you're even "listening" to what I've stated. RNAV vs. non-RNAV equipment isn't the issue I'm concerned with. It's making sure flights can be planned over routes above obstacles and within radio range all the way to the destination and that in-flight amendments can be accepted or rejected 'on the fly' in real time based on cockpit information. For one thing, since RNAV hitches a ride on the availablity of radar service as far as ATC is concerned, pilots ought to be able to optimize their route planning by knowing where non-radar areas exist to avoid inefficient en route revisions around those areas after departure.

Let's take the OP's real scenario with a couple slight changes. I used to give instrument flight tests with oral questions concerning the same route. There was at the time a 3000' TV tower just east of V5 that was off-route, so not affecting the MEA. Depending on exactly where the OP was assigned "direct" his course would have flown right over the now-dismantled tower. Let's say it's still there. So, he's cleared by Columbus "direct" and then he requests and is granted 3000'... then goes NORDO. Following 91.185 to the letter he'll hit the tower and die. What assurance is there that this can't happen? You say there's never "been a problem", but I can rattle off at least three instances where IFR aircraft hit TV towers. Columbus approach is in Indianapolis center, the TV tower is (was) in Mansfield approach's airspace in Cleveland center. Does the computer connect the dots fast enough to prevent this occurrence or not? I want the same assurances in the new system an airways based system has always offered in the old one.

Anonther "what if": Let's say there is no TV tower (there isn't anymore) and the OP asks for 3000' to get out of the ice, which is a legal 91.177 altitude. Can the request be denied on a direct route because of the way ATC arbitrarily drew the sector, including irrelevant obstructions and a consequent higher "MIA" than this particular route actually needs? How was the pilot to know this during flight planning stages where there were no airways to opt for with MEAs? Or to know before accepting a revised routing?

I don't see more avionics purchases as a panacea. Instead, it reveals a weakness that should be addressed if it hasn't been already. If it has been, I'm unaware of it.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

For one thing, since RNAV hitches a ride on the availablity of radar service as far as ATC is concerned

If the controller's handbook still requires that, it is likely to change since the requirement for radar monitoring of GNSS unpublished routes was changed in the AIM a while ago, at least if the route uses database-retrievable published waypoints rather than user-defined ones.

 

[John Collins]

(2) Altitude. At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown:
(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in Sec. 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or
(iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.

What is the highest MIA on a point to point route or random route? If you have no other information and the last assigned altitude and or the expected altitude is below the OROCA (found on the IFR Low chart), 91.185 requires you to use the OROCA. This is no different than being cleared direct to a VOR on a random route and then experiencing communication loss.

 

[John Collins]

If the controller's handbook still requires that, it is likely to change since the requirement for radar monitoring of GNSS unpublished routes was changed in the AIM a while ago, at least if the route uses database-retrievable published waypoints rather than user-defined ones.

7110.65V agrees with the AIM.

 

[aterpster]

There will be a minimum operational network of airways as a backup. In the Western Mountains, there will not be much change. With respect to airways in the rest of the NAS, with some exceptions, most are not being used today. Where they are used is in high traffic areas where the flow of traffic needs to be controlled.

VOR stations along the coasts that tie to oceanic routes will also remain.

 

[dtuuri]

If the controller's handbook still requires that, it is likely to change since the requirement for radar monitoring of GNSS unpublished routes was changed in the AIM a while ago, at least if the route uses database-retrievable published waypoints rather than user-defined ones.

7110.65V agrees with the AIM.

Pasted from AIM 5-1-8 c. 4. on the FAA's website just now:

Increasing use of self-contained airborne navigational systems which do not rely on the VOR/VORTAC/TACAN system has resulted in pilot requests for direct routes which exceed NAVAID service volume limits. These direct route requests will be approved only in a radar environment, with approval based on pilot responsibility for navigation on the authorized direct route. Radar flight following will be provided by ATC for ATC purposes.
​

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

What is the highest MIA on a point to point route or random route?

It's specified by 91.177 in terms of 4 nm either side of the course. ATC has their own ideas about MIA, as I understand it, and assign a value by the same name (MIA) to large sectors on their video map. Not true? Of course, 91.177 applies to the pilot and therefore is a preflight planning exercise unless your avionics suite can do it on the fly for you.

If you have no other information and the last assigned altitude and or the expected altitude is below the OROCA (found on the IFR Low chart), 91.185 requires you to use the OROCA.

No way.

This is no different than being cleared direct to a VOR on a random route and then experiencing communication loss.

You're supposed to pre-plan the route i/a/w 91.177 before you request such a route. If ATC initiates the route they're supposed to assign you an altitude that complies. A pilot has no business asking for a route direct to a VOR that they don't already know would comply with 91.177 in the event of lost comms.
EDIT: So, that's the difference. Under a dynamic new point to point system the pre-planning that was understood in the old system for those special exceptions to airway routings becomes the norm--with no convenient way to accomplish it.

dtuuri

 

[Henning]

A low altitude enroute chart and knowing your position?

Depends on the terrain, if using Airways for terrain avoidance sure.