TEC Route over Quiet LAX (Full ATC)

wayneda40

wayneda40

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
613
Display Name
Display name:
waynemcc
Following a short, pleasant PilotsNPaws transport to Fullerton, we file, pick up, and fly a TEC Route back to Santa Barbara over a very quiet LAX. A TEC Route is a regionally specific, shorthand IFR clearance for a pre-packaged routing, and sometimes simplifies things a little. Have you flown a SoCal TEC Route? How ‘bout a TEC Route in the Northeastern USA? Do you see much benefit?

Thanks for your insight and enjoy the video!
Wayne, the GeezerGeek Pilot
 
As I mentioned elsewhere, northeast TEC is completely different. No identifiers like CSTP21 (Poppa 21) which can be pulled up in Foreflights by name and asked for By name even without a filed flight plan. Just a list of "preferred IFR routes" entirely in TRACON airspace. I'll bet a lot of northeast IFR pilots don't even know they exist.

I don't fly in SOCAL but what surprised me a bit in your video was the full route clearance. I would have expected to hear something more like what you heard coming out of SBA. Sounds like you were too.
 
Last edited:
We used TEC routes in Socal back in my 135 days to reposition airplanes. It’s a unique area because of all the possible points of origin for a charter within the airspace, making TEC a convenient way to hop from one to the other.
 
I used to live in Socal based at EMT. I thought the TEC system was genius. Very easy to get around. Now I live in the DFW area and I think people would benefit from having that out here as well. Not as many terminal areas as southern CA but still there’s a a lot of pilots that like to hop around the few that we have.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don't fly in SOCAL but what surprised me a bit in your video was the full route clearance. I would have expected to hear something more like what you heard coming out of SBA. Sounds like you were too.
Click to expand...
Mark, exactly! In getting these TEC Route clearances a couple dozen times my experience is 50/50... on the outbound leg Santa Barbara clearance delivery indeed gave me the shorthand version.
 
Arob16 said:
I used to live in Socal based at EMT. I thought the TEC system was genius. Very easy to get around. Now I live in the DFW area and I think people would benefit from having that out here as well. Not as many terminal areas as southern CA but still there’s a a lot of pilots that like to hop around the few that we have.
Click to expand...
Indeed the TEC Routes are very handy. As Mark and I just discussed above, they would be pretty much perfect if the clearance was given 100% of the time in the abbreviated form, whereas it seems that half the time the controller reads the full expanded route (wasting both of our time and introducing unneeded opportunity for error).
 
The North/West TEC routes nearly always give you a nice view of LAX - either over midfield with the POPPR-SMO routing or over the runway ends over LAX VOR. The ones that suck are when they send you the long way around Lake Elsinore heading southeast.

midlifeflyer said:
I don't fly in SOCAL but what surprised me a bit in your video was the full route clearance. I would have expected to hear something more like what you heard coming out of SBA. Sounds like you were too.
Click to expand...

FRCs happen from time to time in our airspace. You ALWAYS get one if you fly IFR out of KOXR or KCMA. Other airports figure it out and just give you "radar vectors Whatever P Tec Route." Some controllers seem to want to do them anyway.

What is worse is when you get a reroute and it is the same route (we have a bunch of overlapping airways). Brutal. I got one from L.A. Center last week and asked about it, he just said it was prompted by the computer.
 
N1120A said:
What is worse is when you get a reroute and it is the same route (we have a bunch of overlapping airways). Brutal. I got one from L.A. Center last week and asked about it, he just said it was prompted by the computer.
Click to expand...
You can see that one in other parts of the country too where the same route has multiple airway numbers.
 
N1120A said:
The North/West TEC routes nearly always give you a nice view of LAX - either over midfield with the POPPR-SMO routing or over the runway ends over LAX VOR. The ones that suck are when they send you the long way around Lake Elsinore heading southeast.

FRCs happen from time to time in our airspace. You ALWAYS get one if you fly IFR out of KOXR or KCMA. Other airports figure it out and just give you "radar vectors Whatever P Tec Route." Some controllers seem to want to do them anyway.

What is worse is when you get a reroute and it is the same route (we have a bunch of overlapping airways). Brutal. I got one from L.A. Center last week and asked about it, he just said it was prompted by the computer.
Click to expand...
Good insight... thx!
Yes, the southeast TEC routes, I assume to avoid LAX arrivals, are quite circuitous... the flight before the one in the video, KSBA to KFUL, indeed gets routed (SBAP5) nearly to Pomona.
Wayne
 
wayneda40 said:
Indeed the TEC Routes are very handy. As Mark and I just discussed above, they would be pretty much perfect if the clearance was given 100% of the time in the abbreviated form, whereas it seems that half the time the controller reads the full expanded route (wasting both of our time and introducing unneeded opportunity for error).
Click to expand...

Next time you get a FRC and it is a duplicate of the TEC Route, read back “via the [tec route].”
 
luvflyin said:
Next time you get a FRC and it is a duplicate of the TEC Route, read back “via the [tec route].”
Click to expand...
I'm going to give that a try... even tho I'm guessing that won't fly :). Thx.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You can see that one in other parts of the country too where the same route has multiple airway numbers.
Click to expand...

Sure, but its mostly the rule in this area.

wayneda40 said:
Good insight... thx!
Yes, the southeast TEC routes, I assume to avoid LAX arrivals, are quite circuitous... the flight before the one in the video, KSBA to KFUL, indeed gets routed (SBAP5) nearly to Pomona.
Wayne
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are either high or circuitous. I usually fly IFR up and try to fly VFR back, unless I'm unable. I don't mind getting routed to POM with KFUL - what I despise is being stuck onto that terrible VOR-A approach and having to get a vectored drop from 9000' over SLI.

luvflyin said:
Next time you get a FRC and it is a duplicate of the TEC Route, read back “via the [tec route].”
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.
 
wayneda40 said:
Indeed the TEC Routes are very handy. As Mark and I just discussed above, they would be pretty much perfect if the clearance was given 100% of the time in the abbreviated form, whereas it seems that half the time the controller reads the full expanded route (wasting both of our time and introducing unneeded opportunity for error).
Click to expand...

Wayne, it is interesting that the controller went out of their way to give you the full route clearance. I am Joe C's college roommate and followed you on your trip into the Caribbean. ForeFlight converts the TEC routes in Southern California into points it can understand, so a radial to an airway will likely be changed to using a fix-radial-distance to the airway followed by including the next fix to join the airway. That way an equivalent route can be constructed that follows the original route defined in terms of radials. Fortunately, the Southern California TEC routes can be filed two ways, 1) use the exact form found in the Chart Supplement for the route; or 2) just use the name of the route. Since ForeFlight needs to generate an "equivalent but different" route description than the one in the Chart Supplement in order to parse it and to depict properly on the map, the ATC computer would not recognize it as the TEC route. So you would not be able to get, cleared as filed. So ForeFlight files the route using its name. That way, the controller is fed just the name of the route for the clearance. So even though they give you the full route details, I think you could just read back the route name. ForeFlight monitors the SWIM feed from the FAA and sees the route sent to the controller strip. ForeFlight forwards a copy of this to the pilot and it is termed an "expected route" because the controller is not obligated to issue the route in the actual clearance. Many of these TEC routes were originally formulated in the 1970/80 time frame when having a DME was still unusual. The FAA has improved many of the TEC routes to be more compatible with GPS/FMS systems, but there are still many that are still just expressed as VOR routes. For the most part, if a TEC route is available for a city pair in Southern California, the expected route sent by the ATC computer will be the named route.

TEC routes may only be filed by name in Southern California. They are named in Northern California, but must be filed using the detail route. Where TEC routes are available such as the Northeast, they are not named and are really just preferred routes that usually don't go into center airspace. At one point, you did not need to file a TEC route, just show up at the airport and request Tower enroute to the destination airport. I don't know if this still works.
 
John Collins said:
Wayne, it is interesting that the controller went out of their way to give you the full route clearance. I am Joe C's college roommate and followed you on your trip into the Caribbean. ForeFlight converts the TEC routes in Southern California into points it can understand, so a radial to an airway will likely be changed to using a fix-radial-distance to the airway followed by including the next fix to join the airway. That way an equivalent route can be constructed that follows the original route defined in terms of radials. Fortunately, the Southern California TEC routes can be filed two ways, 1) use the exact form found in the Chart Supplement for the route; or 2) just use the name of the route. Since ForeFlight needs to generate an "equivalent but different" route description than the one in the Chart Supplement in order to parse it and to depict properly on the map, the ATC computer would not recognize it as the TEC route. So you would not be able to get, cleared as filed. So ForeFlight files the route using its name. That way, the controller is fed just the name of the route for the clearance. So even though they give you the full route details, I think you could just read back the route name. ForeFlight monitors the SWIM feed from the FAA and sees the route sent to the controller strip. ForeFlight forwards a copy of this to the pilot and it is termed an "expected route" because the controller is not obligated to issue the route in the actual clearance. Many of these TEC routes were originally formulated in the 1970/80 time frame when having a DME was still unusual. The FAA has improved many of the TEC routes to be more compatible with GPS/FMS systems, but there are still many that are still just expressed as VOR routes. For the most part, if a TEC route is available for a city pair in Southern California, the expected route sent by the ATC computer will be the named route.

TEC routes may only be filed by name in Southern California. They are named in Northern California, but must be filed using the detail route. Where TEC routes are available such as the Northeast, they are not named and are really just preferred routes that usually don't go into center airspace. At one point, you did not need to file a TEC route, just show up at the airport and request Tower enroute to the destination airport. I don't know if this still works.
Click to expand...

On the last couple sentences. It still works. I’d bet that it is done more often than pre-filing a Flight Plan. Unless something has very recently changed. What is SWIM?
 
Last edited:
Hi, John... Joe C indeed said you are our inside man, so that's very cool!

Excellent info you provided on how ForeFlight processes the SoCal TEC Routes. Here's my "Flight" route for the example in the video:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/TbF42cG1v2wNp26A7
vL9pUSjqRiXiDgZ58

... i.e. filed and expected CSTP21
... however, presumably because of a facility SOP, read by the controller (and read-back by me, with error :) as the full expanded route (see 01:43 in the video).

Thanks also for the insight on TEC routes in NorCal and the Northeast.
All the very best,
Wayne
 
luvflyin said:
On the last couple sentences. It still works. I’d bet that it is done more often than pre-filing a Flight Plan. Unless something has very recently changed. What is SWIM?
Click to expand...

I am going from ancient memory on how it works, just show up and request tower enroute. There used to be published information to that effect, but I can't find it in the AIM or chart supplement.

SWIM is a portal into the FAA data. There are many products offered.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/swim/
 
FYI, I asked the data team to generate a new document in the FAA catalog of documents under the Chart Supplement (AFD) folder that breaks out the Tower Enroute Control Routes as its own PDF document that covers Northern and Southern California. Download the document and before you copy the route clearance, search on CSTP21 to have it available. You can then copy/paste the route detail onto your scratchPad for reference before you call for your clearance.
 
John Collins said:
FYI, I asked the data team to generate a new document in the FAA catalog of documents under the Chart Supplement (AFD) folder that breaks out the Tower Enroute Control Routes as its own PDF document that covers Northern and Southern California. Download the document and before you copy the route clearance, search on CSTP21 to have it available. You can then copy/paste the route detail onto your scratchPad for reference before you call for your clearance.
Click to expand...
John, good idea! I found the doc... and search works nicely to find CSTP21. Cool! Did a copy of the route in the PDF, but couldn't find a way to Paste onto a Draw ScratchPad (Paste only seems to work on a Text ScratchPad).
Thanks,
Wayne
 
Last edited:
John Collins said:
FYI, I asked the data team to generate a new document in the FAA catalog of documents under the Chart Supplement (AFD) folder that breaks out the Tower Enroute Control Routes as its own PDF document that covers Northern and Southern California. Download the document and before you copy the route clearance, search on CSTP21 to have it available. You can then copy/paste the route detail onto your scratchPad for reference before you call for your clearance.
Click to expand...

By data team I assume you mean Foreflight’s. Are they doing anything about how they display the Route when a Fix that was previously a Radial/DME fix has since been established as a named Fix? It looks really funny when the Magenta Line goes right over the fix for about a half a mile and then hangs a 180 and goes back to the Fix.
 
luvflyin said:
By data team I assume you mean Foreflight’s. Are they doing anything about how they display the Route when a Fix that was previously a Radial/DME fix has since been established as a named Fix? It looks really funny when the Magenta Line goes right over the fix for about a half a mile and then hangs a 180 and goes back to the Fix.
Click to expand...

If you have a specific case, please point it out. In some instances, it is in the FAA data itself and ForeFlight does not fix it up using the automation. It could possibly be manually fixed. If it is in a route alternative different than the FAA data, IOW the ForeFlight system changed it, send a case to team@foreflight.com
 
wayneda40 said:
John, good idea! I found the doc... and search works nicely to find CSTP21. Cool! Did a copy of the route in the PDF, but couldn't find a way to Paste onto a Draw ScratchPad (Paste only seems to work on a Text ScratchPad).
Thanks,
Wayne
Click to expand...
Wayne, I only tested pasting it into a text type scratch pad. It would be nice if one could paste it into a graphic scratch pad, but I don't see a way to do this.
 
John Collins said:
If you have a specific case, please point it out. In some instances, it is in the FAA data itself and ForeFlight does not fix it up using the automation. It could possibly be manually fixed. If it is in a route alternative different than the FAA data, IOW the ForeFlight system changed it, send a case to team@foreflight.com
Click to expand...

Plug in KAJO KFUL. Pick the ONTP9. There are others. It is in the FAA Data that way. It was at one time just PDZ270R V394. Then because of new computer processing requirements that ‘intercept’ must happen at a fix they used the PDZ270016. Then after that DOWDD was established as a named FIX. But they left the PDZ270016 in there.
Check these two out. SANP11 and CSTP25. What’s the correct way to do it? SLI341R ELMOO as in the SANP11? Or SLI341/19 ELMOO as in the CSTP25?
 
luvflyin said:
Plug in KAJO KFUL. Pick the ONTP9. There are others. It is in the FAA Data that way. It was at one time just PDZ270R V394. Then because of new computer processing requirements that ‘intercept’ must happen at a fix they used the PDZ270016. Then after that DOWDD was established as a named FIX. But they left the PDZ270016 in there.
Check these two out. SANP11 and CSTP25. What’s the correct way to do it? SLI341R ELMOO as in the SANP11? Or SLI341/19 ELMOO as in the CSTP25?
Click to expand...
Wow, so the expanded route for ONTP9 (and others no doubt) is clearly wrong in the FAA document (where ForeFlight it seems is getting its data from)... leaving that PDZ270016 in there is, well, just yuk!
 
So here's a question: Does anyone know the history of why TEC implementation is o different in SOCAL than in the northeast?

Someone asked me and my curiosity took over so I'm asking around.
 
midlifeflyer said:
So here's a question: Does anyone know the history of why TEC implementation is o different in SOCAL than in the northeast?

Someone asked me and my curiosity took over so I'm asking around.
Click to expand...

Probably because it’s been around so long. At least back to 1971. And invented then because of so much GA traffic. And there were so many Approach Controls adjacent to each other. Back then there was San Diego, El Toro, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Ontario, Burbank, Edwards, Mugu and Santa Barbara. Maybe Palm Springs but I don’t remember. Many of the routes have barely changed over the years.
 
luvflyin said:
Probably because it’s been around so long. At least back to 1971. And invented then because of so much GA traffic. And there were so many Approach Controls adjacent to each other.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the timing, but I doubt it's the traffic and number of adjacent TRACONs. As far as I can tell, the longest SOCAL TEC route is Santa Barbara to Tijuana. Only about 185 nm direct distance. In the northeast you can fly more than twice as far via TEC. For example, there's a TEC for the 420 nm direct distance from Manchester NH to Richmond VA, with four Class Bs to route around along the way. Hmmm. Maybe it's exactly the opposite of what you said. Too busy in the northeast to allow those pop-up clearances and too subject to changes due to traffic flow.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Too busy in the northeast to allow those pop-up clearances and too subject to changes due to traffic flow.
Click to expand...
(no historical knowledge here, just some logic) The traffic flow consistency would be a very logical reason, as the SoCal major airports are landing west ops (westward) 90%+ of the time (only a guess)... and some of the TEC routes are noted for the exception case of east ops.
 
wayneda40 said:
(no historical knowledge here, just some logic) The traffic flow consistency would be a very logical reason, as the SoCal major airports are landing west ops (westward) 90%+ of the time (only a guess)... and some of the TEC routes are noted for the exception case of east ops.
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I was thinking too - there's some predictability around LAX which you don't have in the east), but I'm really not looking for guesses and logic (including my own ). More interested in actual history.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Perhaps the timing, but I doubt it's the traffic and number of adjacent TRACONs. As far as I can tell, the longest SOCAL TEC route is Santa Barbara to Tijuana. Only about 185 nm direct distance. In the northeast you can fly more than twice as far via TEC. For example, there's a TEC for the 420 nm direct distance from Manchester NH to Richmond VA, with four Class Bs to route around along the way. Hmmm. Maybe it's exactly the opposite of what you said. Too busy in the northeast to allow those pop-up clearances and too subject to changes due to traffic flow.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The Northeast system covers a lot of territory and a lot of airports. Generically speaking, anyplace where you just go from one airport to another and stay within adjacent Approach Control Airspace is Tower Enroute Control. In three areas it’s been ‘formalized.’ The Northern California and Southern California ones have Coded Route ID’s, The Northeast US does not. Maybe that has something to do with it spanning three Centers airspace’s. Every Approach Control is subordinate to a Center to some degree and the flight plan data processing could get weird trying to ‘code’ routes. @John Collins should know some details about this
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
That's kind of what I was thinking too - there's some predictability around LAX which you don't have in the east), but I'm really not looking for guesses and logic (including my own ). More interested in actual history.
Click to expand...

I can give you what history I know from experience. I started as a Controller at El Toro NZJ, now closed, in 1971. The system existed then and was pretty new. We had the routes on a piece of paper. If someone was going to an airport in the system, we read them that route FRC. If they had happened to have filed it we wouldn’t have known, so no Cleared as Filed. I left there early 72. My next exposure was in 1975 when I re-enlisted and went to North Island NZY. We would get Clearances from San Diego Approach. I do not remember them being ‘coded’ then. Everything was FRC. Maybe there might have been a CAF but I don’t think so. Approach would be the ones who knew. I started flying there and by 1976 the routes had been ‘coded’ for pilots use. They had this thing called Card a Clearance. It was a cardboard sleeve with cutout windows in it. There was a slide you moved up an down to line your departure airport with destination and Presto, there was your route ID and the route. You could pick one up at GADO(now FSDO) or an FBO/flight school. Next I went Santa Barbara SBA. Even though the route codes existed, we just never used them. We had Strip Printers there so knew what had been filed and would give a Cleared as Filed if appropriate. Didn’t happen often. Most local pilots who knew the system didn’t bother filing. Just said how about a clearance to... Non locals who didn’t know the system rarely filed one of those routes so it was FRC. I worked Burbank BUR Approach from 87 thru 93. Same thing, we just didn’t use the route codes. I don’t remember being told not to use them, just nobody ever did. They are used much more now but as we know, some controllers still spit out the FRC. When they started publishing the TEC thing in the AF/D or Chart Supplement, I don’t know.
 
Thanks @luvflyin. That's interesting. Now if someone in the northeast knows that much, it would be great. I don't go back that far. I'm a relative newbie. Both systems were well underway with their differences when I started flying.
 
midlifeflyer said:
So here's a question: Does anyone know the history of why TEC implementation is o different in SOCAL than in the northeast?

Someone asked me and my curiosity took over so I'm asking around.
Click to expand...

My guess is it relates to the nature of the airspace and the traffic flows in and out of the primary airport in the local system, as well as the nature of the terrain.

luvflyin said:
Probably because it’s been around so long. At least back to 1971. And invented then because of so much GA traffic. And there were so many Approach Controls adjacent to each other. Back then there was San Diego, El Toro, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Ontario, Burbank, Edwards, Mugu and Santa Barbara. Maybe Palm Springs but I don’t remember. Many of the routes have barely changed over the years.
Click to expand...

Even with SCT all in one building, the areas act almost like different approach controls. They are closer together to interact and follow the same rules, but yeah.

Also, Palm Springs did have an approach. It was the last one to consolidate into SCT.

midlifeflyer said:
Perhaps the timing, but I doubt it's the traffic and number of adjacent TRACONs. As far as I can tell, the longest SOCAL TEC route is Santa Barbara to Tijuana. Only about 185 nm direct distance. In the northeast you can fly more than twice as far via TEC. For example, there's a TEC for the 420 nm direct distance from Manchester NH to Richmond VA, with four Class Bs to route around along the way. Hmmm. Maybe it's exactly the opposite of what you said. Too busy in the northeast to allow those pop-up clearances and too subject to changes due to traffic flow.
Click to expand...

SBP-TIJ/SAN/MYF/SEE/SDM is longer
 
N1120A said:
My guess is it relates to the nature of the airspace and the traffic flows in and out of the primary airport in the local system, as well as the nature of the terrain.



Even with SCT all in one building, the areas act almost like different approach controls. They are closer together to interact and follow the same rules, but yeah.

Also, Palm Springs did have an approach. It was the last one to consolidate into SCT.



SBP-TIJ/SAN/MYF/SEE/SDM is longer
Click to expand...

Yeah. The 'areas' have a certain amount of autonomy. As the Approaches started moving down there one by one the joke was that there would be 'turf.' There were some incidents with controller egos clashing. One got the cops called. Gate guard told them it was a Federal Reservation and wouldn't let them in. They called a Federal Marshal out there to get them in. What I couldn't remember was if Palm Springs and Ontario shared a common boundary and transferred control directly between each other. It was a Non Radar Approach at the time. So was Santa Barbara but they and Mugu shared a boundary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top