Using high-altitude airways under 18K ft on IFR flight plan?

[roncachamp]

Well the FAA says so.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...ument_procedures_handbook/media/Chapter_2.pdf

Operations above FL 450—use NAVAIDs not more
than 200 NM apart. These aids are depicted on en
route high altitude charts.
2. Operation off established routes from 18,000 feet
MSL to FL 450—use NAVAIDs not more than 260
NM apart. These aids are depicted on en route high
altitude charts.
3. Operation off established airways below 18,000 feet
MSL—use NAVAIDs not more than 80 NM apart.
These aids are depicted on en route low altitude charts.
4. Operation off established airways between 14,500
feet MSL and 17,999 feet MSL in the conterminous
United States—(H) facilities not more than 200NM
apart may be used.


Pilots flying aircraft that are equipped with approved area
navigation equipment may file for RNAV routes throughout
the NAS and may be filed for in accordance with the
following procedures:
1. File airport-to-airport flight plans.
2. File the appropriate RNAV capability certification
suffix in the flight plan.
3. Plan the random route portion of the flight plan
to begin and end over appropriate arrival and
departure transition fixes or appropriate NAVAIDs
for the altitude stratum within which the flight is
conducted. The use of normal preferred DPs and
STAR, where established, is recommended.
4. File route structure transitions to and from the
random route portion of the flight.
5. Define the random route by waypoints. File route
description waypoints by using degree distance fixes
based on navigational aids that are appropriate for
the altitude stratum.
6. File a minimum of one route description waypoint
for each ARTCC through whose area the random
route is flown. These waypoints must be located
within 200 NM of the preceding center’s boundary.
7. File an additional route description waypoint for
each turnpoint in the route.
8. Plan additional route description waypoints as
required to ensure accurate navigation via the filed
route of flight. Navigation is the pilot’s responsibility
unless ATC assistance is requested.
9. Plan the route of flight so as to avoid prohibited and
restricted airspace by 3 NM unless permission has
been obtained to operate in that airspace and the
appropriate ATC facilities are advised.

That's not a regulation, it's a handbook.

 

[roncachamp]

I've filed RNAV PTP before and never gotten it approved so dunno what to tell you.

I've approved thousands of them.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

...ask for direct airborne.

That's not a regulation.

Well the FAA says so.

Thats the Instrument Procedures Handbook. In the preface of the book it reads:

This handbook conforms to pilot training and certification concepts established by the FAA. The discussion and
explanations reflect the most commonly used instrument procedures. Occasionally, the word “must” or similar language
is used where the desired action is deemed critical. The use of such language is not intended to add to, interpret, or
relieve pilots of their responsibility imposed by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

However, the second paragraph tells you 91.181 is the basis for the course to be flown...

§91.181 Course to be flown.
Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within controlled airspace under IFR except as follows:

(a) On an ATS route, along the centerline of that airway.

(b) On any other route, along the direct course between the navigational aids or fixes defining that route. However, this section does not prohibit maneuvering the aircraft to pass well clear of other air traffic or the maneuvering of the aircraft in VFR conditions to clear the intended flight path both before and during climb or descent.

Doesn't say anything about a distance requirement.

 

[frcabot]

Thats the Instrument Procedures Handbook. In the preface of the book it reads:



However, the second paragraph tells you 91.181 is the basis for the course to be flown...



Doesn't say anything about a distance requirement.

Thanks. Good advice in this thread.

 

[PeeGee]

I've approved thousands of them.

in wisconsin? doubtful. Green bay is what, a level 7? LOL

 

[PeeGee]

Really. I'm not kidding.

Jet routes rarely have MEAs.

You didn't say that. You said; "you can fly a victor airway above FL180, the controller will clear you 'via the radials of vxxx'
It's probably not going to fly if you're nonradar or below the MVA however."

A good reason for you to bother with it is to increase your knowledge and correct your misconceptions.

what part of "It's probably not going to fly if you're nonradar or below the MVA however." to the original question doesn't equate to you need to be above the MVA/MIA to fly said route?

Misconceptions? I have none, you, have many.

 

[roncachamp]

in wisconsin? doubtful.

JOOC, why?

Green bay is what, a level 7? LOL

It was a level 7, I believe it's been downgraded to a 6.

 

[roncachamp]

what part of "It's probably not going to fly if you're nonradar or below the MVA however." to the original question doesn't equate to you need to be above the MVA/MIA to fly said route?

Here's a quote of the full paragraph:

you can fly a victor airway above FL180, the controller will clear you "via the radials of vxxx"
It's probably not going to fly if you're nonradar or below the MVA however.

As I said, Victor airways don't have MVAs, they have MEAs, and if you're above FL180 you're well above the MEA.

Misconceptions? I have none, you, have many.

Your misconceptions are revealed by the disparity between your understanding and reality. There are users of this forum that can help you gain a proper understanding, but if you insist on being a d!ckhead you aren't going to get that help.

 

[SbestCFII]

Does anyone have experience using high-altitude airways on an IFR plan below 18K feet? Typically the V/T routes are low-level (below 18K), and J/Q routes are high-level (above 18K feet), but if you're using GPS it doesn't make much difference.

For example, flying from 97MT to 38W, using high-altitude airways, I could fly:
97MT CORDU Q140 J52 SHUKA 38W, for a total distance of 318nm. The highest altitude enroute is only about 7K (except for one area near Mt. Baker), meaning I could fly at 10K for most of the route and have well over 2K mountain clearance.

Using low-altitude airways, though, I'd have to fly a really long way around through Seattle since there are no low-altitude airways in the region:
97MT OLIBY V448 GEG V120 SEA V23 ACORD 38W, turning the 315nm trip into a 410nm trip.

The MEAs on the high-altitude routes are about 25K to 30K, but I don't view these as especially relevant since they're not MOCAs and the OROCAs are far less (highest OROCA is 13k ft). It seems the MEAs are mostly there to assure VOR reception for example, which makes absolutely no difference if you're flying GPS.

So could I submit a flight plan with the high-altitude airways with a lower altitude e.g. 13K feet since I'm /G? Thoughts?

And yes, I realize I could do whatever I wanted if I fly VFR, but I'm specifically inquiring about remaining on an IFR flight plan.

You may be able to file the routing without filing "the route." If there are no conflicts with the low altitude victor routes, then I suppose it could get approved. You could try it and if it's not rejected, see what you get as a clearance.