Holds vs PT

An attempt to file:

KAUS*..BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO..KAQO
Click to expand...
through RTFP which is connected to DUAT resulted in:

DUAT> TAIL N123VK;ETD 2001;DEP KAUS;ARR KAQO;ALTER ;FL 50
OK.
DUAT> RTE KAUS*..BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO..KAQO
ERR150: Invalid ROUTE. Invalid characters entered.
DUAT> ETE 0150;ACCEPT FDC;DECLINE ATC;DECLINE WH;DECLINE HAZ;DECLINE AC
OK.
DUAT> SET RTE_RAD 50;SET FD_RAD 200;BRIEF
ERR254: ROUTE/RTE required.
DUAT> TAIL N123VK;ERASE ALL
OK.
DUAT> DOMESTIC;IFR;TAIL N123VK;ACTYPE C172/G;SPEED 100;DEPART KAUS;ARRIVE KAQO;ETD 2001;FL 050
OK.
DUAT> ROUTE KAUS*..BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO..KAQO
ERR150: Invalid ROUTE. Invalid characters entered.
DUAT> ETE 0150;REMARKS NO DP, NO STARS
OK.
DUAT> FUEL 0500;ALTERNATE ;NAME KEN LANE
OK.
DUAT> ADDRESS XXXXXXXXXXXXXX AUSTIN,TX 78745
OK.
DUAT> PHONE XXX-XXX-XXXX;HOMEBASE KAUS;ABOARD 2;COLOR G/W
OK.
DUAT> CONTACT LLANO FBO
OK.
DUAT> FILE
ERR254: ROUTE/RTE required.
Click to expand...
When I attempt it directly with DUAT.com, I get a popup saying,
Please enter only letters, digits or spaces only (only +/$) characters in the Route field.
Click to expand...
Help! :confused:
 
It is possible that they don't want us pilots to be able to use some of the syntax available to the controllers....
 
KennyFlys said:
Even so, you'd think the clearance controller would look at it and simply issue BETTI as the initial fix, particularly if a student XC is specified.
Click to expand...
Kenny, the techincal issues raised aside, I have no idea what this means.

Why would a controller do anything different from an IFR procedure standpoint just because it's a cross country training flight (other than perhaps understand why the plane is flying a round robin and be prepared for requests for a touch and go or multiple approaches)?

Why would an instructor want them to? After all, this is the =only= IFR cross country required. IMO IFR training tends to be woefully deficient in cross country work and the one required cross country should be as realistic as possible.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Real Time Flight Planner, AOPA's current (soon to be replaced) flight planning offering.
Click to expand...

Okay. I was familiar with RTFS and was thinking RTFP might be similar, but the only guesses I had for the P were paragraph and pamphlet and they didn't make sense in context.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Kenny, the technical issues raised aside, I have no idea what this means.

Why would a controller do anything different from an IFR procedure standpoint just because it's a cross country training flight (other than perhaps understand why the plane is flying a round robin and be prepared for requests for a touch and go or multiple approaches)?

Why would an instructor want them to? After all, this is the =only= IFR cross country required. IMO IFR training tends to be woefully deficient in cross country work and the one required cross country should be as realistic as possible.
Click to expand...
This was actually a primary student and I don't do minimums to meet experience. I was attempting to set him up for more practice at intercepting radials than simply tracking a radial. As long as the student is still dealing with issues, we'll do it for real until he understands the concept. This was one the student took a while to adapt to.

We had done a few practice XC courses in the glass simulator as well as used Tim's VOR Simulator to demonstrate a map view of what is happening. It took a while for him. But, as a result of persistence he's good to keep going. I'm expecting him to be ready for a checkride the middle of December.

The issue with ATC kept us from attempting the scenario where he could do more as far as intercepting. Doing so in IMC was even better since the guy grew up in this area and seems to have absolutely no ability to get lost around here. But, I want him prepared for those trips where that is possible. The other side is if I can do that training without a view limiting device, I will.

The fortunate part in all this is he's financially capable and his business, the source of that ability, causes him to get a dozen phone calls during every time we meet. Consequently, it's only during the lessons he has began turning off the world and concentrating more on training.

However, the issue remains when I attempted to enter DUAT flight plans using the routing format you suggested, they were rejected. Any ideas? I'm going to be trying similar today for a trip from KAUS to KCRP via V17 and V163. This trip will be for an instrument student. RTFP has us intercepting V17 at GARDS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KennyFlys said:
This was actually a primary student and I don't do minimums to meet experience. I was attempting to set him up for more practice at intercepting radials than simply tracking a radial.
Click to expand...
If all you want to do is get him more practice at intercepting radials, why don't you set up your own course and do it VFR. That seems easier than trying to game the IFR system, especially because he is only a primary student.
 
Everskyward said:
If all you want to do is get him more practice at intercepting radials, why don't you set up your own course and do it VFR. That seems easier than trying to game the IFR system, especially because he is only a primary student.
Click to expand...
Experience in IMC and realism. He will go into instrument training shortly after his private is complete so that adds more to his ability. Like I said, I'm not one to stick to minimum requirements. And, as long as I have a willing and capable student, that's the plan.

When I was originally interviewing and making phone calls to flight schools around the country for CFI jobs, I spoke with one manager in Arizona who had 1700TT. He had all of .7 in actual and he admitted that was only because he lost ground contact during a night flight. This for someone with tickets up through an MEI. My students will be more prepared than that.
 
KennyFlys said:
And, as long as I have a willing and capable student, that's the plan.
Click to expand...
That's really the key. You know better than I do what his abilities are. I was just thinking that if you have a student who is just learning, or having trouble intercepting and tracking radials, doing some practice without the distraction of ATC would be a good idea, especially if you are spending time trying to negotiate certain routes with controllers.
 
KennyFlys said:
Experience in IMC and realism.
Click to expand...
yeah but realism is what ATC gives, not what you make up to change it.

I agree with ES; do it VFR and make up what you want for the purpose of teaching intercepting radials, NDB bearings, changes to GPS routings, whatever.

Alternatively, if you put "training" in the remarks, ATC may give you more leeway. But if you are on an IFR flight plan and in IMC and there's other traffic in the area, separation, the smooth flow of traffic, and paying attention for the development of real problems is ATC's priority, not your goal of getting a different set of instructions and going beyond the syllabus with a student.

BTW, RTFP and any flight planning software does not tell you what you will actually get. What you get is "realism"; not what you want to get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top