No airways

NealRomeoGolf

NealRomeoGolf

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
5,123
Location
Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
NRG
I'm doing an Angel Flight out east to Rhode Island on Saturday. Studying the charts I just realized there are no airways whatsoever north and northeast of Pittsburgh all the way up to Buffalo. I don't recall seeing anywhere else that is void of airways like that. Why is it like that?

If you're wondering why I'm wanting an airway, the headwinds are going to be nasty coming home and I was looking for a way to stay at 4k as long as possible. That no man's land won't let me unfortunately.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
I'm doing an Angel Flight out east to Rhode Island on Saturday. Studying the charts I just realized there are no airways whatsoever north and northeast of Pittsburgh all the way up to Buffalo. I don't recall seeing anywhere else that is void of airways like that. Why is it like that?

If you're wondering why I'm wanting an airway, the headwinds are going to be nasty coming home and I was looking for a way to stay at 4k as long as possible. That no man's land won't let me unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Is a Forest zone, both National and State, so that may be a reason. As for Airways, you'll have Jamestown County and Bradford Regional. I get your point there
 
Just ask on the way up there what the MVA is along the shore when talking to the appropriate controllers. I’m guessing they have radar coverage and an MVA that would allow 4 (or lower) if icing is a concern. Get past CLE and go direct. I’ve flown that area a few times but always higher.

Also, the Canadian side has an airway below 4. They are easy to work with/fly thru on the way back to IL.
 
If your flying northern tier of pa it’s neat to pay attention to all the fracking sites that are up there.
 
True ‘nuff. Weird, and it extends well into Ohio -Cleveland area.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
I'm doing an Angel Flight out east to Rhode Island on Saturday. Studying the charts I just realized there are no airways whatsoever north and northeast of Pittsburgh all the way up to Buffalo. I don't recall seeing anywhere else that is void of airways like that. Why is it like that?

If you're wondering why I'm wanting an airway, the headwinds are going to be nasty coming home and I was looking for a way to stay at 4k as long as possible. That no man's land won't let me unfortunately.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming you have GPS and are looking for airways to find MEA’s and MOCA’s to give you an idea of what the minimum altitude for IFR will be through there. Looking at the OROCA’s on the IFR Chart and the MEF’s on the Sectional can give you a good idea of this. Using the MEF’s and adding a thousand feet is usually better because the OROCA grids are twice the size and sometimes an obstruction off to the edge of one of them will give an unrealistic high number for where you are going to be. It looks like there is good Radar coverage throughout that area, I doubt if an Approach Controls Minimum Vectoring altitudes or a Centers Minimum IFR altitudes will prevent you from getting 4000 or very close to it.
There’s no VOR near BUF so that’s probably why the lack of V airways around there. Why they didn’t build some T airways around there, I dunno. They did put a Stand-alone DME at BUF to accommodate the Minimum Operating Network.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
I’m assuming you have GPS and are looking for airways to find MEA’s and MOCA’s to give you an idea of what the minimum altitude for IFR will be through there. Looking at the OROCA’s on the IFR Chart and the MEF’s on the Sectional can give you a good idea of this. Using the MEF’s and adding a thousand feet is usually better because the OROCA grids are twice the size and sometimes an obstruction off to the edge of one of them will give an unrealistic high number for where you are going to be. It looks like there is good Radar coverage throughout that area, I doubt if an Approach Controls Minimum Vectoring altitudes or a Centers Minimum IFR altitudes will prevent you from getting 4000 or very close to it.
There’s no VOR near BUF so that’s probably why the lack of V airways around there. Why they didn’t build some T airways there, I dunno. They did put a Stand-alone DME at BUF to accommodate the Minimum Operating Network.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the OROCAs are a bit high but as you said, there should be some lanes I could carve. I found a recent route that carved a path that should work.
 
Hector Parra said:
Is a Forest zone, both National and State, so that may be a reason. As for Airways, you'll have Jamestown County and Bradford Regional. I get your point there
Click to expand...

This is the future. Victor and Tango airways where structure is needed, otherwise VOR to VOR or GPS point to point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
NealRomeoGolf said:
I'm doing an Angel Flight out east to Rhode Island on Saturday. Studying the charts I just realized there are no airways whatsoever north and northeast of Pittsburgh all the way up to Buffalo. I don't recall seeing anywhere else that is void of airways like that. Why is it like that?

If you're wondering why I'm wanting an airway, the headwinds are going to be nasty coming home and I was looking for a way to stay at 4k as long as possible. That no man's land won't let me unfortunately.
Click to expand...

If you were flying to KPVD from KBUF, this route would not need to be over 4000 until passing HNK. KBUF GEE V84 BEEPS V34 HNK V167 PVD KPVD. The MEA segment on V167 between HNK and HELON is higher, but just 4100 feet. The route is only 11 NM longer than a direct route. The highest MIA between KBUF and GEE is 3600 feet, the rest of the route is based on charted MEA.
 
I just looked at the IFR low charts for the whole of the contiguous 48 states, and it looks like NealRomeoGolf's route is truly in the greatest void of all, for victor airways.

While looking at that, I saw some features at the edge of that big void that I had never noticed in such great proliferation in IFR Low charts: these features kind of look like airways to waypoints, but they're not airways. They either just end at a waypoint, or maybe they take you from one VOR to another via some waypoint, but they aren't numbered airways and they don't have any altitudes, they just have headings. I think the Aeronautical Chart User's Guide just calls them "radial outbounds." So I'm wondering, why are they on the chart at all? Would ATC assign them somehow in a clearance?



Screen Shot 2022-04-15 at 12.17.29 PM.png
 
I remember ferrying an aircraft from Tennessee to upstate New York and having to go through that area in a snowstorm.

The plan was to go North along the coast and make the turn to the East via Buffalo and then along the I-80/90 corridor.

We cut through a corner of that region and it was all hills and trees. We made it as far as Franklin, PA and had to RON.
 
It ends up that I'll be going PVD to MTN (Baltimore) instead and then heading west. Picking up a westbound passenger. That will cause me to avoid neverland. It's still just weird that it is so void of charted options.
 
Welcome to the coming of MON. The elimination of VORs (and the number of area VORs out of service just being let go early) have largely collapsed the Victor airway network in this region. I used to be able to depart to the west to a nearby VOR (GGT, now just a GPS waypoint, GTOWN) to stay our of everyone's hair IFR and then on my merry way to the south, west or southwest once in radar contact. With the VOR decommissioned, I now have to fly north toward SYR until Griffiss can pick me up on radar before being turned south on my way, which is now nearly always GPS direct. Figuring out the allowable minimum altitudes for GPS direct is definitely not as simple as reading MEAs on Victor airways.
 
Why not direct? Why the need for an airway?
 
You’re right. Not as simple. It might take 3, maybe 5 minutes to figure it out using the published OROCA and what not.
 
WDD said:
You’re right. Not as simple. It might take 3, maybe 5 minutes to figure it out using the published OROCA and what not.
Click to expand...
That won't render the "allowable" minimum altitude.
 
You shouldn't use OROCAs. A starting point for flight planning are the maximum elevation figures on the sectional. In non-mountainous areas add 1,000 feet to those values. That will provide a planning altitude. Where radar is available centers with use their MIAs. Non-radar, they are now responsible for providing a legal IFR altitude 4 miles each side of your filed route. This is all covered in a recent change to the AIM, Section 5-1-6. It is not casual reading.
 
I would plan the route with ForeFlight using the profile view and set the Corridor Width to 8 NM. Then select an altitude that provides 2000 feet of clearance over obstacles and terrain. It will provide you with an altitude close to the MIA. File with that altitude or higher. The flight plan is a request with a requested altitude, If you are below any MIA, ATC will assign you an appropriate altitude. I would not use the OROCA as it is too crude and will often result in an altitude higher than is required. The FAA has published the center MIA maps and some folks have used them to generate a map overlay in ForeFlight. The published MIA map values are not intended for navigation and are only updated every two years or so, but they are good planning tools as mountains don't change often, and even though obstacles do change over time, ATC and their computer will have the latest and greatest and keep any altitude assignment for cruise at or above the MIA.
 
John Collins said:
I would plan the route with ForeFlight using the profile view and set the Corridor Width to 8 NM. Then select an altitude that provides 2000 feet of clearance over obstacles and terrain. It will provide you with an altitude close to the MIA. File with that altitude or higher. The flight plan is a request with a requested altitude, If you are below any MIA, ATC will assign you an appropriate altitude. I would not use the OROCA as it is too crude and will often result in an altitude higher than is required. The FAA has published the center MIA maps and some folks have used them to generate a map overlay in ForeFlight. The published MIA map values are not intended for navigation and are only updated every two years or so, but they are good planning tools as mountains don't change often, and even though obstacles do change over time, ATC and their computer will have the latest and greatest and keep any altitude assignment for cruise at or above the MIA.
Click to expand...
Good points, but why not use 1,000 feet outside DMAs?
 
If the entire flight is not over the designated mountainous areas, then 1000 feet would make sense. Although one can plan and file a flight with cruise altitude changes, ATC and the ATC computer ignores them.
 
aterpster said:
You shouldn't use OROCAs. A starting point for flight planning are the maximum elevation figures on the sectional.
Click to expand...

It sounds like Low IFR charts are becoming useless.

Previously they were useful for showing airways with their altitudes, but it seems that airways are vanishing. And OROCAs are useless, as you and John say.

So will there be anything of use to a piston pilot remaining on Low IFR charts, in our future of hardly any VORs or airways?
 
One addition to the IFR enroute charts will be to add the service volume codes for VOR's and DME facilities so pilots will know where the expanded service volumes are available to use VOR to VOR navigation. They also identify which airports are MON airports, in the event of GPS failure or widespread GPS outage.
 
Do say why one should ignore/ not use ORACO. OROCAs are useless?
 
WDD said:
Do say why one should ignore/ not use ORACO. OROCAs are useless?
Click to expand...
They cover too large of an area and they aren't updated. They are intended for emergency use.

For example flying direct TOP-PUB, the OROCA near PUB is excessive.
 
WDD said:
Do say why one should ignore/ not use ORACO. OROCAs are useless?
Click to expand...

I would not say they are useless, but rather that OROCA's will not necessarily prescribe the lowest IFR altitude for a given route. This is mostly the case in and around mountainous areas, but also can be true in the flat lands where a radio tower forces the OROCA up several thousand feet in one half degree by half degree quadrant, but your flight path is no where near the tower by tens of miles.
 
So the ORACA isn’t going to give the lowest possible. Got it. But it will give you an altitude you can use if you go direct. Which most people do.

Seems acceptable and useable.
 
I was amazed when I learned about Foreflight profile view...
 
aterpster said:
Good points, but why not use 1,000 feet outside DMAs?
Click to expand...
Adding to the discussion of Designated Mountainous Areas, those have changed recently. There are a few areas carved out of the old DMA's. If you're fine tuning your route based on that, you may want to be sure you have an up to date DMA map. And it's not uncommon to find MIA's below the 2000 foot rule. That can be reduced to 1700 out west and 1500 out East over the Appalachian chain. The FAA can reduce it with a study to establish MIA's. 91.177 (2) doesn't say anything about us rolling our own on this though. Availibility of Altimeter Reporting Stations was a primary reason for the 2000 foot rule to begin with. There didn't tend to be a lot of them in the Mountains with large distances between them. High to low watch out below. Bernoulli and Venturi effect is a factor also. Think of the mountains like being the top of a wing and valleys like the venturi of a carburater and what wind blowing over/through them does to air pressure.

EDIT: Looks like they haven’t changed yet but may soon. Read on a few more posts.
 
Last edited:
John Collins said:
I would not say they are useless, but rather that OROCA's will not necessarily prescribe the lowest IFR altitude for a given route. This is mostly the case in and around mountainous areas, but also can be true in the flat lands where a radio tower forces the OROCA up several thousand feet in one half degree by half degree quadrant, but your flight path is no where near the tower by tens of miles.
Click to expand...
It can get pretty weird out west. Mt. Whitney, the highest spot in the lower 48 and Death Valley, the lowest are within about 20 miles of being in the same Grid. It is effectively closer than even that. OROCA's take into account not only the obstructions within the Grid, but any obstruction within 4 miles of it.
 
luvflyin said:
Adding to the discussion of Designated Mountainous Areas, those have changed recently. There are a few areas carved out of the old DMA's. If you're fine tuning your route based on that, you may want to be sure you have an up to date DMA map. And it's not uncommon to find MIA's below the 2000 foot rule.
Click to expand...
Where have they changed? This is the current AIM map. Looks like it has since I've been doing this stuff. As to the reduction to 1700/1500 that is an FAA route design option. It doesn't apply to pilot-rolled direct routes. Those are governed by 91.177 (a) (2) with zero wiggle room. 4 miles each side of center-line-left, right, forward, and aft.

Continental US DMAs.jpg
 
aterpster said:
Where have they changed? This is the current AIM map. Looks like it has since I've been doing this stuff. As to the reduction to 1700/1500 that is an FAA route design option. It doesn't apply to pilot-rolled direct routes. Those are governed by 91.177 (a) (2) with zero wiggle room. 4 miles each side of center-line-left, right, forward, and aft.

View attachment 106308
Click to expand...
Looks like it may have not been done yet. I referenced that only the FAA can do the 1700/1500 thing above in my post #35.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/fli...ations/20-02-Designated-Mountainous-Areas.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top