TEC Route Redundancy

[Mark Hargrove]

What is the reason that some TEC routes have what seems to be like redundant information in them? Just picking one at not-so-random, BURN26 (KVNY to KOKB) for class 'Q' aircraft is V186.ROBNN.V458.OCN.

Why is V458 needed? Unlike V186 which has two distinct and significant bends in it, V458 is a straight, short 16nm segment from ROBNN intersection. Wouldn't the route
V186.ROBNN.OCN result in the exactly the same flight path?

I sort of don't understand the reasoning behind the way the route is written anyway. If the objective is to make the TEC route crystal-clear to a pilot, I'd write it as something like V186 PDZ TANNR ROBNN OCN. Why make a pilot hunt for the twisty-bendy V186 unless the objective is to make the route as compact to write as possible. And if that's the objective, why put V458 in the route which adds no information?

Inquiring minds want to know!

-M.

[julio.elizalde]

Hi Mark,

One of the major reasons I can think of why an airway would be stipulated between two direct points is for lost communications. Even though you are flying a straight line between two waypoints, there is a minimum enroute altitude (MEA) for that segment of the airway. Say if you were in IMC and lost contact with ATC while on that final straight line, the MEA could potentially keep you from descending directly into terrain (that is, if you're cross referencing your IFR charts while flying IFR). If the airway were not stipulated, you might think that a descending to find VFR conditions would be a good idea, potentially resulting in a disaster.