Another IFR Departure - was the clearance legit?

Bill Watson

Bill Watson

En-Route
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,704
Location
Durham NC
Display Name
Display name:
MauleDriver
Coming out of KPNE yesterday, clearance delivery gave me this:
"Cleared to (destination airport), vectors to Modena (MXE), Victor 29 to Smyrna (ENO), Victor 29 to Victor 229 to Patauxent (PXT), as filed blah blah."

Even though I'm not that familiar with flying around Phillie, I knew I was never going to have to fly that clearance as long as my radios worked.

But Foreflight wouldn't eat the V29 to V229 part telling me, "Airway V29 requires an exit waypoint".

A look at the enroute chart shows V29 crosses V229 but that there isn't any waypoint at the intersection. And if Foreflight won't eat it, I don't know how to put the plan into the G430.

Was that a legitimate clearance?

I didn't think so and went back to Clearance delivery saying I couldn't make the V29, V229 thing work. I wish I had said, "unable to load clearance into FMS"

Anyway, it ended up taking almost 30 mins to get a new clearance (MXE, ENO, CHOPS, V16, PXT) and to wait for the release. Once off, the vectoring and step climbing made mincemeat of the clearance as expected.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N215TG/history/20130327/2300Z/KPNE/8NC8

I made one boo boo. Having too much time to sit and read about noise abatement (turn before 2nd highway when departing 33), After being cleared for TO and runway heading, I started a left turn to MXE as I was being handed to departure. Not sure what I was thinking as they called me on it and repeated "fly runway heading, contact departure". Oops.
 
That is odd. I fly Philly a lot and never got that out of PNE going south.
 
I have flown routes like that in socal. You just intercept the the radial for V229. A better clearance would be MXE V29 ENO V16 GARED V229 PXT.
 
Yes, that's a legitimate clearance. And nobody thought twice about it before GPS's.

As far as how to put it in your 430, you create a user waypoint at the intersection of the two airway radials:
  1. Outer knob to WPT
  2. Inner knob to USER waypoints
  3. New waypoint
  4. Define the new user waypoint using the two VOR radials which define the airways (ENO R-189/ACY R-246)
  5. Note the lat/long coordinates generated
  6. Name the waypoint to use in the 430 FPL (say, "29229").
  7. Load the route in FPL as:
    1. KPNE
    2. MXE
    3. DQO
    4. ENO
    5. 29229
    6. GARED
    7. PXT
Now, to put that in Foreflight:
  1. Go to More->User Waypoints.
  2. Tap the + in the upper right corner to create a new user waypoint.
  3. Copy the lat/long coordinates from the 430 into the new user waypoint and name it (e.g. 29x229).
  4. Enter the user waypoint into the Foreflight route
Since Foreflight will not recognize that point as being on those airways, you will not be able to use airway routing through that point. You'll have to load it as KPNE MXE V29 ENO 29x229 GARED V229 PXT.

Alternatively, you can start by putting this in iPad/Foreflight by loading the route as far as ENO, then direct GARED V229 PXT. Then, put your finger on the leg from ENO to GARED until the circle flashes and rubberband it to the intersection of V29 and V229 and hit "add to route". You can also then load the resulting coordinates as a new user waypoint in your 430 so you can load the route there.

And I just checked both on my iPad/Foreflight -- they work.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, that's a legitimate clearance. And nobody thought twice about it before GPS's.

As far as how to put it in your 430, you create a user waypoint at the intersection of the two airway radials:
  1. Outer knob to WPT
  2. Inner knob to USER waypoints
  3. New waypoint
  4. Define the new user waypoint using the two VOR radials which define the airways (ENO R-189/ACY R-246)
  5. Note the lat/long coordinates generated
  6. Name the waypoint to use in the 430 FPL (say, "29229").
  7. Load the route in FPL as:
    1. KPNE
    2. MXE
    3. DQO
    4. ENO
    5. 29229
    6. GARED
    7. PXT
Now, to put that in Foreflight:
  1. Go to More->User Waypoints.
  2. Tap the + in the upper right corner to create a new user waypoint.
  3. Copy the lat/long coordinates from the 430 into the new user waypoint and name it (e.g. 29x229).
  4. Enter the user waypoint into the Foreflight route
Since Foreflight will not recognize that point as being on those airways, you will not be able to use airway routing through that point. You'll have to load it as KPNE MXE V29 ENO 29x229 GARED V229 PXT.

Alternatively, you can start by putting this in iPad/Foreflight by loading the route as far as ENO, then direct GARED V229 PXT. Then, put your finger on the leg from ENO to GARED until the circle flashes and rubberband it to the intersection of V29 and V229 and hit "add to route". You can also then load the resulting coordinates as a new user waypoint in your 430 so you can load the route there.

And I just checked both on my iPad/Foreflight -- they work.
Click to expand...
Wow. Learned a lot about both boxes there. I like the point and drag on the iPad - never thought of that approach. But I'm still thinking about what I might do now.

Yeah, pre-GPS it was just a radial intercept but I'm not sure my wrists can twist like that any longer :eek:
 
Inverted said:
I have flown routes like that in socal. You just intercept the the radial for V229. A better clearance would be MXE V29 ENO V16 GARED V229 PXT.
Click to expand...
I actually suggested something like that but I guess clearance delilvery is more of a one way street. They weren't that interested in what I thought would be a good one.

It was an odd clearance, an odd delay and a whole lot of vectors and step climbs with a good bit of traffic once up.
 
Why couldn't you simply put your finger on the screen and make a waypoint for Foreflight? You are not using FF as a primary nav device anyway.

When I get weird things like that I just enter the waypoint exit for V29 in the 530 - and just plan to fly the VOR Radial on the 530 until its time to join the other airway -

You know you are not going to fly it - at least not very often - so why make the effort - put the first 2 waypoints in there - and then simply fly the departure as published or the clearance as given.

The advantage of having FF is that you can now display this clearance on the moving map screen using the touch screen - and see roughly, +/- 5 degrees anyway - what your heading needs to be for that section where entry into a 430/530 takes many many button clicks. At that point you just press HDG -
 
Last edited:
The 430 has a VOR receiver in it, so another way of navigating it would be to just follow V29 until you get to V229. Of course that's easier if you have two VOR receivers.
 
Palmpilot said:
The 430 has a VOR receiver in it, so another way of navigating it would be to just follow V29 until you get to V229. Of course that's easier if you have two VOR receivers.
Click to expand...
You don't need two VOR receivers or a GPS to navigate along a radial to an intersection other than on the final segment of an approach. In fact, I teach my trainees how to do a single-radio hold at an intersection all the time. Simply a matter of good procedures and pacing.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, that's a legitimate clearance. And nobody thought twice about it before GPS's.

Now, to put that in Foreflight:
  1. Go to More->User Waypoints.
  2. Tap the + in the upper right corner to create a new user waypoint.
  3. Copy the lat/long coordinates from the 430 into the new user waypoint and name it (e.g. 29x229).
  4. Enter the user waypoint into the Foreflight route
Since Foreflight will not recognize that point as being on those airways, you will not be able to use airway routing through that point. You'll have to load it as KPNE MXE V29 ENO 29x229 GARED V229 PXT.
Click to expand...
That sounds like an awful lot of work and taps (especially your step 3) compared with the other ways of doing it such as touching the spot or, if you want more precise accuracy, entering the waypoint using either FIX/Radial/Distance or FIX1radial/FIX2Radial in the search box
 
Last edited:
The only real issue with Airway to Airway transitions without a named fix or navaid at the intersection is to make sure you have an unambiguous specification of the route. Sometimes, airways cross more than once.
 
flyingron said:
The only real issue with Airway to Airway transitions without a named fix or navaid at the intersection is to make sure you have an unambiguous specification of the route. Sometimes, airways cross more than once.
Click to expand...


I would think the first crossing would be the one implied.
 
Inverted said:
I have flown routes like that in socal. You just intercept the the radial for V229. A better clearance would be MXE V29 ENO V16 GARED V229 PXT.
Click to expand...

Better than that would be MXE V29 ENO V16 PXT.
 
comanchepilot said:
Why couldn't you simply put your finger on the screen and make a waypoint for Foreflight? You are not using FF as a primary nav device anyway.

You know you are not going to fly it - at least not very often - so why make the effort - put the first 2 waypoints in there - and then simply fly the departure as published or the clearance as given.
Click to expand...
I'm in the habit of using FF to decode airways for input into the 430. Poor man's 480 I guess. Otherwise, I don't spend much time putting clearances into FF other than the the departure and arrival points.

I considered just going with it knowing that I wasn't going to have to fly it but being my first time out of KPNE, I chickened out on that one.
 
Ron Levy said:
You don't need two VOR receivers or a GPS to navigate along a radial to an intersection other than on the final segment of an approach. In fact, I teach my trainees how to do a single-radio hold at an intersection all the time. Simply a matter of good procedures and pacing.
Click to expand...
That's some serious old school!

I got my IR in a minimally equipped Maule and could do single radio intercepts and holds but I'd be fooling my self if I thought I could do it expeditiously in Class B space. I should practice stuff like that but honestly, I just won't (unless I take a ride with you).

This experience showed me I need to keep up my airway flying skills even though I so rarely get them. But ATC really should avoid using unnamed intersections and intercepts when so many waypoints are available.
 
John Collins said:
Here is how I entered the clearance into ForeFlight.

View attachment 29393
Click to expand...
I just did it myself! Next time, no problem. And it turns out FF again works well in deciphering airway clearances. In this case either generates a lat and long for G430 entry or puts the right lines on the map to help visualize what I'm doing with the VORs.

Now what I need to do is get proficient with the HSI display on my experimental MFD from GRT but in real life, I'll probably do the FF thing and follow CommanchePilot's thing.

Thanks all :yesnod:
 
Last edited:
John Collins said:
Here is how I entered the clearance into ForeFlight.

View attachment 29393
Click to expand...
Seems simple enough althouhg, John, I'm pretty sure you can leave out the "R"s and ENO/189/ACY/246 would give you the same result. You can also leave out the slashes between the VOR and radial (ENO189/ACY246) but it's generally better to leave them in for consistency with other similar shortcuts, such as course/distance from VORs and airports.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Seems simple enough althouhg, John, I'm pretty sure you can leave out the "R"s and ENO/189/ACY/246 would give you the same result. You can also leave out the slashes between the VOR and radial (ENO189/ACY246) but it's generally better to leave them in for consistency with other similar shortcuts, such as course/distance from VORs and airports.
Click to expand...

Mark,

Thanks for pointing that out. I have used the R because FF didn't use the VOR radial unless you used the R, it used the local variation. Prior to version 5, the R was required to get the VOR declination (variation at the time of installation or last alignment of the VOR). With version 5, FF uses the VOR declination as the default when a VOR is defined in the waypoint/radial. FF confirmed this, so no more need for the R. It also doesn't need the / between the VOR and radial if there are two radials, but does need it if the format is VOR/radial/dist.
 
I get these frequently, it seems. How do I deal with it? I copy the clearance, parrot it back, and then negotiate with ATC downstream. The clearance delivery controller is the proverbial messenger and any changes need to get coordinated downstream. That's why you had the delay.

Wait until to get to the sector of the controller who handles that airspace and make a the request. Usually I end up with a short cut around the pseudo-intersection.
 
Brad Z said:
I get these frequently, it seems. How do I deal with it? I copy the clearance, parrot it back, and then negotiate with ATC downstream. The clearance delivery controller is the proverbial messenger and any changes need to get coordinated downstream. That's why you had the delay.

Wait until to get to the sector of the controller who handles that airspace and make a the request. Usually I end up with a short cut around the pseudo-intersection.
Click to expand...

Or you can pay $185 per year for the ARINC nav data subscription, and receive the same data they use for the ARTCC computers. It has the LAT/LON for all those plances where airways cross.
 
aterpster said:
Or you can pay $185 per year for the ARINC nav data subscription, and receive the same data they use for the ARTCC computers. It has the LAT/LON for all those plances where airways cross.
Click to expand...

What would I do with that data subscription? Can I load it into the 530W?
 
I swear ForeFlight used to accept airway to airway entries (ABC V3 V215 XYZ) but that capability got lost in one of the revisions. It was quite awhile ago I saw it.

Me, I leave the intersection in question out when I enter it and then simply 'grab' the route on the straight line between the two points and move it to the intersection. It creates a point for you right there at the right spot.
 
Captain said:
I swear ForeFlight used to accept airway to airway entries (ABC V3 V215 XYZ) but that capability got lost in one of the revisions. It was quite awhile ago I saw it.

Me, I leave the intersection in question out when I enter it and then simply 'grab' the route on the straight line between the two points and move it to the intersection. It creates a point for you right there at the right spot.
Click to expand...
It still accepts them as far as I know. That's what I meant by using FF as an airway decoder.

However it chokes on any airway that doesn't have a named waypoint of some kind on both ends. That was the OP situation - Cleared for ABCDE FGH V11 V22 ETC. The problem is that while V11 and V22 cross, there is no named waypoint defined.
 
Ron Levy said:
You don't need two VOR receivers or a GPS to navigate along a radial to an intersection other than on the final segment of an approach. In fact, I teach my trainees how to do a single-radio hold at an intersection all the time. Simply a matter of good procedures and pacing.
Click to expand...

A great skill..knowing "same side safe" with the OBS
 
No, it used to eat it even without the intersection. I'm 99% sure of it. I was showing it off one day last year (early) and it wouldn't do it.
 
This thread is killing me :goofy:

I run into this in airline ops too. This is a simple case where time saving, ease of use automation is dragging us down. You need to drop to a lower level of automation. In this case, the easy path is to use the VOR and be done with it. A multi step work around might work or you might make an error. What would you have done had you received a revised clearance in the air?
 
Last edited:
jonnyjetprop said:
This thread is killing me :goofy:

I run into this in airline ops too. This is a simple case where time saving, ease of use automation is dragging us down. You need to drop to a lower level of automation. In this case, the easy path is to use the VOR and be done with it. A multi step work around might work or you might make an error. What would you have done had you received a revision clearance in the air?
Click to expand...

No you don't. Nobody (I hope) is using FF for primary navigation. If you have an FMS you need to know how to program the box when you get an airway to airway clearance as 'unable' is unprofessional and weak at best.

If you have an FMS and can't program an airway to airway clearance then THAT is unprofessional and should be addressed with your training department. There is no need to 'drop to a lower level of automation' in this instance.
 
Not sure I'd have bothered doing the complicated programming Ron suggested although that would have worked. I'd have probably just done it the old fashion way. It's not hard.

Sometimes it amazes me how much time a pilot will waste trying to program their GPS instead of just flying the damn airplane and using the needles like the aviation gods intended.
 
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought that the OP was using FF to aid in programming his Garmin 430.


Captain said:
No you don't. Nobody (I hope) is using FF for primary navigation. If you have an FMS you need to know how to program the box when you get an airway to airway clearance as 'unable' is unprofessional and weak at best.

If you have an FMS and can't program an airway to airway clearance then THAT is unprofessional and should be addressed with your training department. There is no need to 'drop to a lower level of automation' in this instance.
Click to expand...
 
What? No OBS usage on the 430?

Plug in the VORs/GARED as waypoints on the 430
Fly to the VOR for V29
Use second NAV radio to navigate on V29
OBS function to match the radial on V229 to GARED.
Fly on V29 until your CDI for the Garmin is centered.

Really? Making up a user waypoint? Come on people.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
What? No OBS usage on the 430?

Plug in the VORs/GARED as waypoints on the 430
Fly to the VOR for V29
Use second NAV radio to navigate on V29
OBS function to match the radial on V229 to GARED.
Fly on V29 until your CDI for the Garmin is centered.

Really? Making up a user waypoint? Come on people.
Click to expand...

What you suggest won't work if you use a waypoint such as GARED to set the GPS OBS course. To make it work, the GPS has to have a VOR as the waypoint or the OBS will use the local variation. With nothing better to do, setting up a user waypoint at the intersection takes up 30 seconds to a minute using the VOR-radial, VOR-radial method. The GPSS can take it from there.
 
John Collins said:
What you suggest won't work if you use a waypoint such as GARED to set the GPS OBS course. To make it work, the GPS has to have a VOR as the waypoint or the OBS will use the local variation. With nothing better to do, setting up a user waypoint at the intersection takes up 30 seconds to a minute using the VOR-radial, VOR-radial method. The GPSS can take it from there.
Click to expand...

And this is a problem why? If it used true I could see it being a problem. But VORs and their radials are aligned for variation - or are supposed to be.


Flight planning says there's a 2º difference off the ACY VOR vs what the GPS route would say. That's 1) within the airway limit, and 2) within VOR error tolerance. So what's the issue?
 
Last edited:
I thought the 430 had a built-in VOR receiver.
 
EdFred said:
And this is a problem why? If it used true I could see it being a problem. But VORs and their radials are aligned for variation - or are supposed to be.


Flight planning says there's a 2º difference off the ACY VOR vs what the GPS route would say. That's 1) within the airway limit, and 2) within VOR error tolerance. So what's the issue?
Click to expand...

The issue is that you are supposed to navigate an airway along the center line. A two degree error will put you two miles off center at 60 NM. Some VOR variations can differ by 5 degrees, which would put the aircraft outside the airway. The issue is compliance with the rules for flying the airway. Most pilots won't have the information handy to determine the effect of the difference, so as a practical matter, one needs to use the VOR as the waypoint if they are the type of pilot that complies with rules.
 
John Collins said:
The issue is that you are supposed to navigate an airway along the center line. A two degree error will put you two miles off center at 60 NM. Some VOR variations can differ by 5 degrees, which would put the aircraft outside the airway. The issue is compliance with the rules for flying the airway. Most pilots won't have the information handy to determine the effect of the difference, so as a practical matter, one needs to use the VOR as the waypoint if they are the type of pilot that complies with rules.
Click to expand...

Let see, CDI indicators are to be within 4º of each other. Which means one could be on, and one off 4º. GARED is 82 miles from ACY. You wanna do the math on that? I bet I'm closer to the center line using the OBS vs the CDI radial. Now who's a better pilot?

PS - it's less than 30 miles from the V29/V229 intersection to GARED.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Let see, CDI indicators are to be within 4º of each other. Which means one could be on, and one off 4º. GARED is 82 miles from ACY. You wanna do the math on that? I bet I'm closer to the center line using the OBS vs the CDI radial. Now who's a better pilot?
Click to expand...

I have no idea who is a better pilot as it isn't relevant to the discussion. I simply follow the rules and offered the information. You as a pilot, can do with it as you will.
 
John Collins said:
I have no idea who is a better pilot as it isn't relevant to the discussion. I simply follow the rules and offered the information. You as a pilot, can do with it as you will.
Click to expand...

So your advice is to fly the CDI off the VOR, which could put you up to 5+ miles off the centerline by the time you hit GARED - because it's "the rules" as opposed to using the OBS function which should keep one within the airway. So noted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top