dell30rb
Final Approach
Literally happened to me 3 times in the last 5 flights.
Last edited:
Suffix G
- Thread starter andybean
- Start date
Literally happened to me 3 times in the last 5 flights.
Where to look first.
I'm not saying that non GPS-equipped pilots are not capable of flying direct routes. I'm saying that there are circumstances when people put down "direct" not because they are actually planning to fly a straight line, but because it's not practical to specify in advance the exact details of the route. This is especially true when flying in high mountain ranges.
Even if there were no possibility of SAR folks making use of the information, I honestly don't understand why folks are making such a big deal about this. It doesn't cost anything to put /G on a VFR flight plan, and it doesn't do any harm.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
One point about vectors to an airport -- if it's "vectors for the visual approach," you can certainly accept that, because you do have the necessary equipment to conduct that visual approach on board (two eyeballs, or one eyeball and a SODA).
We seem to be covering a lot of different topics in a short time in this thread. As for DR for enroute IFR, where can the requirement for a rated flight navigator be found?
Vectors for a visual approach are often issued in IMC.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
You may be in IMC when you start, but you'll be in VMC before you're done. It's kind of like "fly heading 180, direct Salisbury VOR when able [i.e., when receiving it suitable for navigation]," except it's "fly heading 180, advise Salisbury in sight [and I'll clear you visually then]."
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
There is no authorization for pure DR for enroute IFR, and I never said there was. There is a requirement for a Flight Navigator to do cel nav, during which you are DR-ing much of the time, but using cel to fix your position periodically. And if you go into 7110.65, you'll see the controllers have to make a much bigger hole in the sky for you when you are cleared for cel nav.
That doesn't equip you to comply with 91.185's "direct" requirement if you are in the clouds when you lose comm unless you are already on a heading and altitude that take you out of them.
When I receive vectors for an ILS, I often receive a downwind vector before being given an intercept vector. I don't see how a /U or /A aircraft is equipped to comply with the direct requirement in 91.185 if comm loss happens on the downwind. Do you believe that it's illegal to accept vectors that are given for the purpose of getting the aircraft in position for an intercept vector?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
91.185 does not and cannot cover all contingencies. Vectors for the visual is an FAA-accepted practice, and if you lose comm without getting visual, you proceed to a fix from which you can commence a SIAP. Ditto lost comm while receiving vectors to final other than on an intercepting vector -- you proceed to a fix to which you can navigate, and then proceed from there.
That said, if I lose comm in my plane while on vectors to final, I'll use my GNS530 to give myself the remaining vectors to final. Not specifically addressed in any reg, but I think 91.3(b) will cover my legal butt in that case.
Last edited:
Sorry, I misread your post.
The AIM says that VFR and hand−held GPS systems are not authorized as a principal instrument flight reference, but I haven't been able to find a similar statement about dead reckoning for IFR enroute purposes.
It seems to me that ATC vectors are an accepted practice in general, and that 91.3(b) will cover your butt if you lose comm during ANY vector, with or without an IFR GPS on board.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Adding to the fray a bit here...
Denver Center gives the puddle jumper airlines "Vector XXX, Direct YYY, resume own navigation when able" all the time. They're hundreds of miles outside of the service area of YYY when they do this.
Denver Center gives the puddle jumper airlines "Vector XXX, Direct YYY, resume own navigation when able" all the time. They're hundreds of miles outside of the service area of YYY when they do this.
milkman dan
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 16
- Display Name
Display name:
Milkman Dan
You can give direct anywhere if the plane is RNAV equipped. The fly heading XXX, cleared direct YYY on course is done for spacing.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
That's acceptable to Flight Standards, because if you stay on heading, eventually, you'll pick it up.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Doesn't happen. First off, the filed route rarely comes into play. Second, again, if you filed the route, why would they care how you were flying it? Even when all I had was a pair of VORs and I might have filed CJR .. CSN .. MOL .. LYH .. BZM ... I'd tune in that next station and go direct to as soon as I could recieve it. It's not like I was flying it had I been given a set of Victor airways.
So, I was wondering, my departure into IMC was basically a clearance to join a radial between two points with a time block. Was that strictly legal?
roncachamp
Final Approach
Strictly speaking, nothing in your rather vague tale suggests anything improper.
If you'd read the post I was responding to, we were talking about someone putting /G in a VFR flight plan because he thinks it some how matters to the SAR effort.
Sorry, I departed into IMC once using it and that would have been 9+ years ago, I cannot recall the exact wording of the clearance off the top of my head. I just got down to the point of remembering what I did. He gave me a block of space to join a radial at an altitude with a void time. I find it strange that they would make a legal way to enter controlled airspace IFR and not a way to depart one. I would think PIC would have authority to exit controlled airspace any time he desired provided he could do so without causing a traffic conflict on his way out. I am still PIC in command of the flight, not ATC, why should they have to accept that liability? Under commercial ops I can see it being restricted without a doubt, but part 91 the way I was taught it was PIC authority. Of course these were guys shooting approaches into their own ranches...
Funny how much different you view things between rural and urban. Urbanites expect order and rural expect freedom of choice as the default.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Do you recall the departure point?
I find it strange that they would make a legal way to enter controlled airspace IFR and not a way to depart one. I would think PIC would have authority to exit controlled airspace any time he desired provided he could do so without causing a traffic conflict on his way out. I am still PIC in command of the flight, not ATC, why should they have to accept that liability? Under commercial ops I can see it being restricted without a doubt, but part 91 the way I was taught it was PIC authority. Of course these were guys shooting approaches into their own ranches...
Most IFR aircraft enter controlled airspace vertically, they climb into it after departing an airport and reach it after climbing no more than about 1200 feet. If you're speaking of departing controlled airspace laterally, by leaving Class E airspace at cruise altitude into an area of Class G airspace, all that's needed is a valid clearance to the point you exit controlled airspace.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Regards to SAR...
CAP National guy with access to cell phone company location data has more Finds last year than anyone else Nationwide if I counted right.
Want to be found, dead or alive, leave the cell phone on in your pocket.
(Technically illegal but neither the FCC nor the carriers care much.)
CAP National guy with access to cell phone company location data has more Finds last year than anyone else Nationwide if I counted right.
Want to be found, dead or alive, leave the cell phone on in your pocket.
(Technically illegal but neither the FCC nor the carriers care much.)
You seem awfully sure that it can't ever possibly be useful, but so what? Do you think there is some kind of down side to putting it in?
And if what you say is true, then filed routings on VFR flight plans are useless too, so why bother with those either?
roncachamp
Final Approach
After obtaining an amended clearance, of course.
I believe he's talking about VFR flight plans.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Originally /R was for IFR approved area nav such as a KNS80. There were two or more IFR LORAN receivers which also qualified for /R (e.g. KLN90B and ArNav R50i) before any IFR GPS navigators became available. And I recall similar confusion among pilots WRT the legality of filing and flying off airway routes beyond VOR service volumes when using a VFR only LORAN. One pilot I knew who was the chief pilot for a very large enterprise that insisted he was legal filing direct /R as long as he put "VFR LORAN" in the comments. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Ranch strip was between V355 an V568 between SPS & UKW
Ranch strip was between V355 an V114 between SPS & UKW I'd be on the V114 for the approach. It was a backstop approach anyway. Normally If I needed I'd come down through the layer on the ILS at SPS and then break out under, cancel and fly home underneath. Every now and again though we get LIFR on one of my commute days so I made sure I had something for in case. In 7 years I may have filed into/out of there 3 or 4 times.
Last edited:
We're talking VFR here, Steve. The poster argues that telling them he is /G is somehow going to change how they hunt for him in a SAR event VFR.
"Somehow"? Ron, you can't search everywhere all at once. Resources are limited, so the areas searched first are the ones that are judged to have the highest probability of finding the target. SAR folks collect whatever intel they can on the pilot, the aircraft, etc., in making these judgments. Your claim that what you put down for an equipment code can't make any difference seems exaggerated based on my years as a search pilot.
Last edited:
Only if you don't have a GPS integrated 406 device. Then they come right to your location you last broadcast.
I have yet to fly a rental plane with one of those installed. Besides, it doesn't cost anything to let SAR know that you are GPS equipped, so what's the big deal?
Last edited:
Well, it does cost, but it's payed for anyway. The only way they know your equipment VFR is if you file a VFR flight plan. I haven't done that since as a Student Pilot. If you are relying on a flight plan for SAR, you're pretty much resigning yourself to self rescue or death.You buy a 406 G/PLB for less than $200 and wear it around your neck, it fits in your hand and you keep it with you. You cannot count on SAR to get any information that does not come through the COPASS/SARSAT system directly. If you missed it, there's a thread here somewhere where a guy talking to the controller even, ditched in one Great Lake and non SARSAT system SAR was looking for him in the wrong lake. Luckily a fisherman came across him.
Do whatever else you may want out of ritual, but for real, get yourself a PLB.
I guess the flight plan filing system is paid for out of aviation taxes, but once a pilot makes the decision to file a VFR flight plan, the choice of equipment code incurs no incremental cost for anyone.
I've heard statistics that indicate the time to be found is significantly shorter when a flight plan is filed. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think it was something on the order of a day or so.
Sounds like a good idea.
Right, and the 406 device gets them there another day-week faster. The actual difference is in when the search gets started, as soon as you push a button and call for help; then how they determine the search site, by the GPS location transmitted to them. SAR turns into hours rather than days. When Pandemonium was one of the first civilian 406 calls, she had lost her keel between Hawaii and California. The COPASS/SARSAT sytem feeds the Global Maritime Distress Signaling System (GMDSS), through the same system they then sent out a NAVTEX transmission and a radio call with the 406 EPIRB location, a ship responded and everybody was on a freighter warm, dry and fed 6 hrs later (it took the ship that long to get there, it was underway to location within minutes.
Much of SAR from the Flight Plan alerting system was unsuccessful. We already spent a hell of a lot of tax money on the the COPASS/SARSAT system, might as well make ones self avail. With that you can have SAR alerted with your position before you ever go in, just activate it on the way down.
Here's the deal, SAR without these devices is hugely expensive, these little suckers knock the snot out of the cost. Going forward, DO NOT expect serious SAR without one. With a 406 device SAR is hours, if you don't have the device, the time they spend looking is going to shrink until it disappears.
How does the fact that the guy has a GPS and is flying between point A and B differ from the fact that he was flying VFR via pilotage or DR or whatever between point A and B? What information do you think it provides?
They're going to look at the presumed route (most likely a VFR pilot only filed a direct to destination). They then look at anywhere you can be with regard to the fuel involved. With all the deference to your "years as a search pilot" this is the way the FSS and the ensuing SAR mechanism works.
Where did you get that information? Have you talked to AFRCC about it?
First off, let me be clear that I'm not saying it's a hugely significant piece of information, and I'm not saying that it will often make the difference between being found before you expire or not. I haven't been in a supervisory role on search missions, so I'm not able to say that they absolutely, positively do look at the equipment code. I'm just saying that from what I have heard about the intelligence-gathering that goes on, it's plausible that it could be one of many clues that could be used in deciding which part of the filed route to search first, and which places that are off the filed route to search first. So on a route across the Sierras for example, it seems plausible to me that an incident commander could see the /G and conclude that the first place to look is where the direct route intersects the highest part of the mountain range (especially if it was a night flight). If it's a /A or /U, he/she might instead look for the nearest mountain pass and decide to have that searched first. That's all speculation on my part, of course, but I don't have to be certain how and whether the information will be used, because the cost to neither the tax payer nor the pilot is increased by including that information in the flight plan, so I see no reason not to put it in.
I don't disagree with that statement, except that by the time it's gotten to the point of physically searching, the decisions about where to search and in what order are made by the incident commander (and anyone he/she delegates that task to), not the FSS.
I guess that begs the question.... How compentent is the "incident commander" .. Hindsite is 20/20 vision.... look at the complete details that have now been released on the Steve Facett crash....
Wanna read story on what NOT to do....
