No. All I did was create a point in space defined by a radial and distance. The clearance you described was to fly to CROWD and then to that point in space.
I guess it could happen, but the only times I've heard discussions of a clearance like this have been on an initial clearance, as in the original post.
I've heard if them, but never got one. If you look at common clearances between PIE and FXE, Radial/Distance fixes off PHK appear in a few. It was a capability of the "old" VOR-based RNAV boxes.
Yes... a number of times.
Or outbound.
While that intersection exists at that point, it might not be part of the route structure they can give for that particular instance.
I get that fairly common flying up the coast here in Southern California... typically they'll have you fly a radial after SMO VOR then another radial. Honestly, the whole user waypoint creation, etc., seems like more work than just writing it down and switching to VLOC mode with the radial and flying that
Orlando Departure gives them all the time flying out of MCO
@RussR .... Any insight from our resident charting office insider?
No doubt someone would then complain about giving an enroute intersection which is not on the low enroute chart.
LOL. I tried using the new Studio beta. It set the video to default at "private" and it stayed private even after I changed it to public. At this point, even I can't view it when I'm signed in as the author, although I was able to delete it. So much for beta. I'm re-uploading and will re-link (I hope).
Yup, departing N Las Vegas ifr, clearance was given on the ground
I'm far less familiar with the IFD, but I think the primary difference is how the waypoint is created. The FPL screen only looks to waypoints already in the system, and rejects the "new" name rather than prompt you to create a user waypoint.
Sometimes I miss the good old days before gps. Read a map, tune the VOR and set the course. Ready to fly. Lot less complicated than it is now
It’s funny some of the reactions I’ve seen from other pilots when the gps is broken.
I don't. Yes it is more complicated. There is definitely a learning curve, steeper for some than for others. And while a VOR is a VOR is VOR (for the most part), the variation among GPS units along product lines (even from the same manufacturer) is pretty broad. It is much harder to hop into an airplane with something different. But once you reach a level of proficiency with the one or two you typically use, I think it makes life so much easier.
Honestly, that's why if I get a VOR radial I just switch to VOR and fly that.. just easier than fumbling with the Garmin
For location, if the VOR is the active waypoint, it's pretty easy to just watch the distance countdown (like old fashioned DME
). The nice thing about the updated functionality (yeah, it's been standard in the IFR for a long time) is the VNAV function. You can set the crossing restriction and the unit paints a TOD on the map and prompts your descent based on your ground speed and VNAV preferences. I'm not completely sure, but I think it is still missing a prompt for what VSI you need to get down if you are already past your TOD and ATC set you up for a slam dunk.
Nice post!For location, if the VOR is the active waypoint, it's pretty easy to just watch the distance countdown (like old fashioned DME
It is. There is a way to show it on the GTN Map. You can change the user fields, so take one of the four you don't care that much about and change it to VSR. The number of fields is limited which makes the choice difficult, but it can also be done in the 430/530, so it's not a bad idea for a dual installation.
