Clearance question V499 / DIANO

luvflyin said:
Will it cause a FMS or some other RNAV(GPS) unit to freak out. It still seems like to small an offset to bother taking it off V499.
Click to expand...
The RNAV/FMS doesn't freak out, it simply will not accept V499 to DIANO. When the pilot pulls out his chart of choice to verify the routing he will find that V499 does not contain DIANO on either the NACO or Jepp enroute charts.

While there are workarounds that a pilot could use to program their navigator to fly something very similar to the cleared route, ignoring the discontinuity, the threat is that a mistake made in trying to approximate the route could result in a navigational error which, if uncaught, could lead to a pilot deviation or even a traffic conflict.

The solution, on the pilot's end, is very simple. Tell ATC that you are unable to fly the clearance and suggest an alternative that you can fly such as direct DIANO instead of V499.DIANO. The solution on the FAA/ATC end isn't quite as simple as someone has to correct the error and either put DIANO back on V499 everywhere or remove it from V499 everywhere.
 
Larry in TN said:
The RNAV/FMS doesn't freak out, it simply will not accept V499 to DIANO. When the pilot pulls out his chart of choice to verify the routing he will find that V499 does not contain DIANO on either the NACO or Jepp enroute charts.

While there are workarounds that a pilot could use to program their navigator to fly something very similar to the cleared route, ignoring the discontinuity, the threat is that a mistake made in trying to approximate the route could result in a navigational error which, if uncaught, could lead to a pilot deviation or even a traffic conflict.

The solution, on the pilot's end, is very simple. Tell ATC that you are unable to fly the clearance and suggest an alternative that you can fly such as direct DIANO instead of V499.DIANO. The solution on the FAA/ATC end isn't quite as simple as someone has to correct the error and either put DIANO back on V499 everywhere or remove it from V499 everywhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I get that DIANO isn't in there in the FMS's data as being on V499 and you can revert to some 'old fashoned' navigating to deal with being given V499 DIANO. What I was wondering is, if they hadn't taken DIANO off of V499 because it wasn't right smack dab on centerline, would the FMS get 'weird' because it showed itself on centerline of the airway yet 200 feet off a fix on the airway.
 
Last edited:
An airway is defined in the FMS database as lines connecting specific points. If V499 included DIANO in the database then V499 would go exactly over DIANO as far as the FMS was concerned.
 
Larry in TN said:
An airway is defined in the FMS database as lines connecting specific points. If V499 included DIANO in the database then V499 would go exactly over DIANO as far as the FMS was concerned.
Click to expand...
In the U.S., an airway, its altitudes, and fixes are issued as a regulation under Part 95. Presumably DIANO was removed from the legal description of V499, if it was ever there.
 

Attachments

  • AWY1V499_Page_2.jpg
    AWY1V499_Page_2.jpg
    165.6 KB · Views: 5
roncachamp said:
Chartmakers do some odd things at times. Sectional charts depict airway intersections but not DME fixes. Take a look at WARWF on the Green Bay Sectional. WARWF is a DME fix, it can be determined by radial and distance from two VORs. But it is depicted as an intersection, an intersection with zero degrees of divergence. That doesn't work, so I contacted the chartmakers about the error. I was told that whenever source documents show two radials making up a fix it is depicted as an intersection.
Click to expand...
Looks like they got that fixed. The only thing showing at WARWF are DME Fix arrows
 
luvflyin said:
So DIANO got removed from V499 04/02/2015. The Enroute Chart drawers got the word. The folk who do the Data Bases for the GPS's, FMS's and stuff got the word. Looks like the DP Chart drawers didn't get it nor did ATC. While were on the subject, how much difference does that what looks like less than 200 feet make? Will it cause a FMS or some other RNAV(GPS) unit to freak out. It still seems like to small an offset to bother taking it off V499.
Click to expand...

DIANO got removed from V499 the same way a declaration by the governor of Illinois might remove Chicago from his home state. DIANO is still on the airway, and nothing short of altering the coordinates and description of the fix can change that.

But where is DIANO? Is it where the published coordinates indicate? Or is it where the three published radial/distances indicate? Those four dimensionless points do not coincide, but they all fall within the lateral limits of V499.
 
So, back to the original puzzle.
Could this be solved by simply injecting the last know good fix on the Victor airway before the Tango airway fix?
Such as: V499 MARRC DIANO T212
 
roncachamp said:
DIANO got removed from V499 the same way a declaration by the governor of Illinois might remove Chicago from his home state. DIANO is still on the airway, and nothing short of altering the coordinates and description of the fix can change that.
Click to expand...

My residence is almost on centerline of V23.
 
FWIW, a sectional is a visual chart for VFR flight.

ATC learned that when it was pointed out some 10 years ago that designing MVA charts from sectionals missed some significant topography at mountain-area TRACONS. Prior to that many MVA charts didn't comply with FAA requirements for MVAs.
 
luvflyin said:
You should try to get a fix named after you. Hey, there's a WALLY at EMT. Is that you?
Click to expand...
Yep. As is WALLE the FAF on the RNP AR Rwy 30 IAP at KBIH. Also RBRTS on V-230 and an IAF on the KBIH RNAV Y and Z Rwy 12. The FAF JAAKE is for my grandfather, who was among the first to stake out a vacation cabin on forest service land circa 1916. His place was a bit of mountain paradise. The area still is. The cabin is at: N 37 46 36.08 , W 119 07 20.02
 
aterpster said:
In the U.S., an airway, its altitudes, and fixes are issued as a regulation under Part 95. Presumably DIANO was removed from the legal description of V499, if it was ever there.
Click to expand...
Looks like it was there and got removed in 2015, see post #29. I'm wondering if T212 was established at the same time. Is there something about the 'hyper accuracy' of GPS that makes 'them' decide if it isn't right on centerline, then it must go away. Of course it being removed from V499 doesn't change anything about T212, nor V106 and V164. But I wonder if it was during the building of T212 that the 130 foot offset(I think that's what it is, give or take a foot or so) from V499 was discovered. So then Peter decides to remove it and Adolfo says OK. @Larry in TN said above that the FMS navigates from fix to fix. In other words it doesn't try to stay established on some externally generated centerline like a Radial or Localizer. Makes sense and if so then I can see no logical reason to have removed DIANO from V499. Maybe ATC felt the same and said "those guys are crazy" we're gonna keep giving LNS V499 DIANO T212 LAAYK just like we always have. That's probably not true of course, but somewhere the lines of communication got broken.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top