Victor airways best for VFR?

Guys, guys. I OP'd this thread for some advice, which was high quality and I got more than I asked for. I'm not sure but I feel like there is some kind of "good cheer" holiday soon, so let's give folks the benefit of the doubt eh?

I'm pretty sure we don't need to recreate the various flying handbooks here one post at a time ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you don’t think you’d have to load it before you “Intercept and track a given course, radial, or bearing, as appropriate,” per the Private Pilot ACS?
Click to expand...

Intercepting and tracking a course has nothing to do with understanding how to load an airway and actually know what you’re doing. Also flying a victor airway is nowhere in the private ACS, so no, it’s not the same thing.

This conversation is going nowhere so I’m out.

OP- I understood what you were saying, as did most others.
 
eman1200 said:
Intercepting and tracking a course has nothing to do with understanding how to load an airway and actually know what you’re doing. Also flying a victor airway is nowhere in the private ACS, so no, it’s not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Ah…so you disagree that Victor airways are useful for non-instrument-rated pilots.

The ACS is written in a manner that allows the examiner discretion based on the equipment in the airplane. Victor airways are courses presented on a sectional chart. Victor airways are useful for a Non-instrument-rated Private Pilot. If an instructor doesn’t teach these basics (and remember, your disagreement with me started with a post by someone who was required to demonstrate VOR navigation on his Private Pilot checkride, and then claimed his instructor added it as something “new” afterwards) is doing a big disservice to his student.
 
MauleSkinner said:
He didn’t say he was teaching him instrument cross country. He said he was teaching him to use the stuff he should have learned as a student pilot.
Click to expand...
NOT TRUE! What I said was that he taught me how to use IFR tools to plan and fly a cross-country.
No where in the Private is there a place where the CFI teaches the student to use Low-Altitude charts and related info. For the private, it's all sectionals, compass correction, wind correction and dead-reckoning when approaching cross-country flight planing.
 
thito01 said:
For the private, it's all sectionals, compass correction, wind correction and dead-reckoning when approaching cross-country flight planing.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. In 1985, VOR navigation was specifically required as part of Private Pilot training. In fact, at that time, you couldn’t take a Private Pilot checkride in its entirety in, say, a no-electric Champ, even with a Venturi for needle and ball.
 
Last edited:
Private pilots should be taught, and be able to demonstrate, how to navigate via an airway with a vor or a gps.
 
Salty said:
Private pilots should be taught, and be able to demonstrate, how to navigate via an airway with a vor or a gps.
Click to expand...
Although I will admit that since U.S. pilots are supposed to be able to “read, write, speak, and understand” the English language, reading the Pilot Guide would be a suitable replacement for “being taught” how to load an airway in a GPS unit.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, it’s not. In 1985, VOR navigation was specifically required as part of Private Pilot training.
Click to expand...
That is not the subject of the post that I MADE. The subject was cross-country PLANNING and execution using IFR charts vs using VFR charts, as taught for the private.

You have turned a cow into a mule so that you could beat it to death.

Please re-read my original post:
thito01 said:
I would highly recommend about 1-2 hours of "how to fly cross-country using IFR tools" with your CFI. Back in '86, when I had a fresh PP ticket, my instructor knew I was planing a VFR trip from FL to WI. He sit me down and went over the low-altitude IFR charts and how I could use them based on the equipment in my aircraft. We also did a "x/c" practice flight using those tools. This completely changed how I planed and flew x/c flights.
Click to expand...
 
thito01 said:
That is not the subject of the post that I MADE. The subject was cross-country PLANNING and execution using IFR charts vs using VFR charts, as taught for the private.

You have turned a cow into a mule so that you could beat it to death.

Please re-read my original post:
Click to expand...
Ok…so what “tools” did he teach you about that didn’t involve Private Pilot skills in the use of VOR and DME?
 
Trying to remember back to PP vs IR, I believe in PP, VOR's were all about radials. TO/FROM, intercepting, tracking etc. Airways were not taught. For example, switching from one VOR to the next at an intersection might be one airway vs Radial difference. Could be wrong as it's all kind of blended together in my old guy memory.
 
aterpster said:
Not so.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So they don't always publish an MRA if it's higher than MEA? Or is MRA only for radio reception, not radar coverage? Now that you mention it, there is a section of airway over Northern Maine where Boston Centre loses me on radar (but not radio) when I'm close to MEA.
 
Maybe it's just a thing here in the NE, but it sure seems like you find more airports, and therefore more places to set down if tshtf if you fly airways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
thito01 said:
It was all about PAPER! It had NOTHING to do with PILOT SKILLS.
PAPER! PAPER! PAPER!
Click to expand...
So how did these PAPER! PAPER! PAPER! tools “completely change” how you “planned and flew” cross country flights?
 
Last edited:
Very shortly after getting my private pilot certificate, I came to the realization that all the instructors thought that all the other instructors were teaching it wrong. ;)
 
Palmpilot said:
Very shortly after getting my private pilot certificate, I came to the realization that all the instructors thought that all the other instructors were teaching it wrong. ;)
Click to expand...
I came to that realization after seeing jet pilots who apparently believe jet engines have carburetors with accelerator pumps. ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
So how did these PAPER! PAPER! PAPER! tools “completely change” how you “planned and flew” cross country flights?
Click to expand...
I used 'IFR Low' charts (almost) exclusively. (Still carried sectionals per regs, but seldom referenced them.)
I no longer worried about all 'this correction' or 'that correction' for planing that was required for the PP cross-country. My planning became 'VOR inbound' and 'VOR outbound' and any correction was based on how much I was off course at the time. For the most part, 'dead-reckoning' was dead for me.
 
thito01 said:
I used 'IFR Low' charts (almost) exclusively. (Still carried sectionals per regs, but seldom referenced them.)
I no longer worried about all 'this correction' or 'that correction' for planing that was required for the PP cross-country. My planning became 'VOR inbound' and 'VOR outbound' and any correction was based on how much I was off course at the time. For the most part, 'dead-reckoning' was dead for me.
Click to expand...
None of that is beyond the Private Pilot requirements. You simply chose to reduce reliance on some techniques and increase reliance on others.

If that “completely changed” the way you do things, I stand by my original statement.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Why is that not something a student pilot should learn?

Seems like you’d have to be able to load it before you can “Intercept and track a given course, radial, or bearing, as appropriate.”
Click to expand...

Direct To provides a course to track, no loading of an airway needed. Nowhere in the FAR experience requirements nor in the Private Pilot ACS is en route navigation using an airway mecessary. In fact, the FAA goes to great lengths in the PHAK and AFH to avoid any discussion about using VORs as anything other than as a supplement to pilotage and dead reckoning.

I think the FAA has woefully low expectations and standards for a private pilot’s ability to navigate.
 
TCABM said:
Direct To provides a course to track, no loading of an airway needed. Nowhere in the FAR experience requirements nor in the Private Pilot ACS is en route navigation using an airway mecessary. In fact, the FAA goes to great lengths in the PHAK and AFH to avoid any discussion about using VORs as anything other than as a supplement to pilotage and dead reckoning.
Click to expand...
Nowhere in the FAR experience requirements nor in the Private Pilot ACS does it say use of “Direct To” is required, either.

I think the FAA has woefully low expectations and standards for a private pilot’s ability to navigate.
Click to expand...
I agree…or at least they write things such that an instructor can ignore a lot of important stuff if they “train for the test”.
 
Rgbeard said:
The OP is an IR-in-training pilot, and yet we had a discussion here about where to find airways?

Some CFII needs an adjustment.
Click to expand...

The guy I quoted wasn’t the OP. I said OP but it wasn’t him.
 
geezer said:
The scallop mentioned was a reference to the VOR airways not being perfectly straight, but slight curves, and with an S turn over the station. The legs are depicted as straight on the charts, as error varies with altitude.
Click to expand...

We rarely ever noticed the scallop before GPS. I am not convinced that is all of the cause as to why GPS and VOR rather frequently disagree with each other by a somewhat significant margin. But when it happens during Instrument training it is pretty easy for me to tell if the trainee is following the primary navigation device or not.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
brcase said:
I am not convinced that is all of the cause as to why GPS and VOR rather frequently disagree with each other by a somewhat significant margin.
Click to expand...
I’ve always thought that had more to do with the fact that VORs and GPS don’t necessarily see north (or any other direction) using the same frame of reference.
 
MauleSkinner said:
None of that is beyond the Private Pilot requirements. You simply chose to reduce reliance on some techniques and increase reliance on others.

If that “completely changed” the way you do things, I stand by my original statement.
Click to expand...

So, I guess you are the 'perfect CFI' and make sure your student pilots are fully briefed and can tell you everything about IFR-Low charts before they take their PP check ride?
And, when they go to the check ride and perform the cross-country planning exercise, they ignore the 'standard' planing form and just tell the DE that they are simply going from point-a to point-b using the IFR-Low charts and they don't give a rat's **** about magnetic variation or wind correction angles or even looking at ground references because they never use sectionals anyway?

The PP check ride is all about doing it the way the FAA wants you to do it, even if in real life, we just grab the tablet and have fore-flight do all the work.

You really need to go back and remember what you were NOT taught before your PPL. And, also remember what little equipment was in those trainers. Maybe you should rent a current low-cost trainer. Some may have an early GPS, but you won't find many that have anything other than a single KX-155. (And, to be honest, that is all a trainer really needs.)
 
thito01 said:
So, I guess you are the 'perfect CFI' and make sure your student pilots are fully briefed and can tell you everything about IFR-Low charts before they take their PP check ride?
And, when they go to the check ride and perform the cross-country planning exercise, they ignore the 'standard' planing form and just tell the DE that they are simply going from point-a to point-b using the IFR-Low charts and they don't give a rat's **** about magnetic variation or wind correction angles or even looking at ground references because they never use sectionals anyway?

The PP check ride is all about doing it the way the FAA wants you to do it, even if in real life, we just grab the tablet and have fore-flight do all the work.

You really need to go back and remember what you were NOT taught before your PPL. And, also remember what little equipment was in those trainers. Maybe you should rent a current low-cost trainer. Some may have an early GPS, but you won't find many that have anything other than a single KX-155. (And, to be honest, that is all a trainer really needs.)
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t teach my Private Pilot students to use IFR charts. And you haven’t given any reason why they are necessary, or even made any difference.

if “in real life” you’re going to grab the tablet and have foreflight do all the work, fine…but your training should reflect that. If it doesn’t, your instructor failed.
 
thito01 said:
So, I guess you are the 'perfect CFI' and make sure your student pilots are fully briefed and can tell you everything about IFR-Low charts before they take their PP check ride?
And, when they go to the check ride and perform the cross-country planning exercise, they ignore the 'standard' planing form and just tell the DE that they are simply going from point-a to point-b using the IFR-Low charts and they don't give a rat's **** about magnetic variation or wind correction angles or even looking at ground references because they never use sectionals anyway?

The PP check ride is all about doing it the way the FAA wants you to do it, even if in real life, we just grab the tablet and have fore-flight do all the work.

You really need to go back and remember what you were NOT taught before your PPL. And, also remember what little equipment was in those trainers. Maybe you should rent a current low-cost trainer. Some may have an early GPS, but you won't find many that have anything other than a single KX-155. (And, to be honest, that is all a trainer really needs.)
Click to expand...
I had an airways question on my PPL written test, and I knew the answer from what I was taught.

PA.VI.B.K1
PA.VI.B.S3

Anything on a sectional is fair game for a PPL oral question. Including airways.
 
Salty said:
I had an airways question on my PPL written test, and I knew the answer from what I was taught.

PA.VI.B.K1
PA.VI.B.S3

Anything on a sectional is fair game for a PPL oral question. Including airways.
Click to expand...
And note that PA.VI.B is a part of the flight test, not just the oral.
 
MauleSkinner,
If you don't know how much different it is planing a long trip using IFR-Low charts vs Sectionals, then you should go plan a trip from FL to WI with only sectionals and the 'standard' cross-country form used for the PPL training. No cheating, fill out every column. That magnetic variation of 1 degree is VERY important. Then, plan it using IFR-Low carts using airways radials and see how much easier it is.

I think you have forgotten how little you knew back then. And, if so, I pity your students. What do they need? About 80-100 hours before you will send them for their PPL check-ride?
 
thito01 said:
MauleSkinner,
If you don't know how much different it is planing a long trip using IFR-Low charts vs Sectionals, then you should go plan a trip from FL to WI with only sectionals and the 'standard' cross-country form used for the PPL training. No cheating, fill out every column. That magnetic variation of 1 degree is VERY important. Then, plan it using IFR-Low carts using airways radials and see how much easier it is.

I think you have forgotten how little you knew back then. And, if so, I pity your students. What do they need? About 80-100 hours before you will send them for their PPL check-ride?
Click to expand...
No, I haven’t forgotten how little I knew back then…and I have planned trips that long on sectionals, both with and without electronic navigation available. I knew, however, that the “standard cross country form” was a training tool, not necessary to fill out in its entirety for every flight. In fact, I based my flight planning to my Private Pilot an estimated heading and time based on intercepting a VOR radial, and didn’t fill out the form. I simply told my instructor how I was going to get there and how long it was going to take, and he signed me off for the cross country.

You still haven’t said what makes getting radials and distances from a sectional (that already include variation) so much worse than getting that exact information from a low enroute chart.
 
Last edited:
While it may be good practice to follow Victor airways and track to/from VORs, there is no real reason to do so. Direct will save time and fuel, and keep you from creating concentrated traffic around VORs. Plus direct will be a good opportunity to exercise pilotage skills. Airways don't necessarily guarantee radar coverage, but they are often arranged to avoid MOAs or other restricted airspace. I don't file Victor airways even IFR anymore. If going direct, just double check safe altitudes and any flight restrictions or clearances required. If necessary you can put your own doglegs in a flight plan to avoid unfriendly terrain or Class B airspace you don't want to fly through. Most of all just enjoy using an airplane to take longer trips!
 
David Megginson said:
Interesting. So they don't always publish an MRA if it's higher than MEA? Or is MRA only for radio reception, not radar coverage? Now that you mention it, there is a section of airway over Northern Maine where Boston Centre loses me on radar (but not radio) when I'm close to MEA.
Click to expand...
MRAs have nothing to do with radar.
 
David Megginson said:
Interesting. So they don't always publish an MRA if it's higher than MEA? Or is MRA only for radio reception, not radar coverage? Now that you mention it, there is a section of airway over Northern Maine where Boston Centre loses me on radar (but not radio) when I'm close to MEA.
Click to expand...
MRA's have nothing to do with Radar. They could be said to be for Radio reception in as much as VOR is a form of 'radio.' Radar also, Radio Detection and Ranging. MRA is for Nav signal reception.
 
Rgbeard said:
yep I got sucked into the error.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's annoying, too. I regularly fly a route, filed on a victor airway at an altitude above the MEA and ATC invariably has me climb several thousand feet to get into radar coverage rather than applying non-radar procedures.

Of course this is the same facility that tells me I have a new routing and asks me to advise when ready to copy and then just clears me direct to my destination. I needed to copy that?
 
thito01 said:
I would highly recommend about 1-2 hours of "how to fly cross-country using IFR tools" with your CFI. Back in '86, when I had a fresh PP ticket, my instructor knew I was planing a VFR trip from FL to WI. He sit me down and went over the low-altitude IFR charts and how I could use them based on the equipment in my aircraft. We also did a "x/c" practice flight using those tools. This completely changed how I planed and flew x/c flights.
Click to expand...

To respond (sort of) to thito01's first post that seems to have stimulated a lot of discussion, there is information on an IFR Low chart that isn't on a sectional. For example, MEA's which are helpful for VOR reception and Center frerquencies. I was taught VOR's for the Private, but not a lot of detail about VOR service volumes, etc., until I started working on my IFR. Since tracking VOR radials while flying on airways lets the VOR and VOR receiver take care of the wind correction angle and magnetic deviation, I can see why thito01 would have found that a lot simpler for a long cross country. When LORAN first came along (or at least when I was first exposed), it blew me away that I could fly direct without having to keep my finger on a sectional, and I didn't need the E-6B anymore because the LORAN told me my groundspeed and time to destination. Then we got GPS. Each piece of technology made it easier to navigate. I think that is what impressed thito01 when his instructor exposed him/her to the airways on a low chart, not that he/she didn't already know about VOR's. Simplicity is good! :)
 
You lost me. Why are following airways do anything for you with regard to WCA and magnetic variation that any other radial (or the magenta GPS line for that matter).
 
flyingron said:
You lost me. Why are following airways do anything for you with regard to WCA and magnetic variation that any other radial (or the magenta GPS line for that matter).
Click to expand...
Because s-turns across a course are the most efficient flight planning technique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top