I-02 FLIGHT PLAN

[bbuckley]

Thanks everyone for the comments. Here's a some quick observations:
1. The fail is my fault. I missed the heading and didn't get clarification soon enough. There were extenuating circumstances and I certainly would have asked DEP where my vectors were in about a another minute. Stuff happens in real life (controller dealing with distractions and pilot missing a heading call) and this was a good lesson.
2. I still believe in real world my flight plan is as good as V3 OCN. Both would get a heading and vectors anyway. And I like my rationale when it's not a TEC. (You better believe I will file EXACTLY "V23 OCN" on the next I-02 attempt however ).
3. I've used ForeFlight Pro a long time and recognize most strengths and weaknesses. I know it doesn't accept airways and must use waypoints so I wasn't assuming anything based on that alone. And I would have kept that route on FF in flight as reference while flying the vectors.
4. I would never launch real world or PE without researching the route so I did have both the FAA database and the MyFlightRoute.com. I knew this was a TEC and the route was V23 OCN (vague as that is...) and I knew to expect vectors.
5. This experience and conversation are evidence of the value of PilotEdge. Thanks for a great service and for caring in keeping it high fidelity.
Bruce

[Peter Grey]

Hello Bruce,

I'm going to keep this rather short as it's late.

The fail is my fault. I missed the heading and didn't get clarification soon enough. There were extenuating circumstances and I certainly would have asked DEP where my vectors were in about a another minute. Stuff happens in real life (controller dealing with distractions and pilot missing a heading call) and this was a good lesson.

Yes and no, I listened to the recording of the clearance and the way the controller paused did create the ambiguity that resulted in the missed heading. As the root cause wasn't your fault (even if you should have caught it) Keith and I decided that we are going to reverse the I-2 fail. I talked with the controller involved and seeing as the rest of the flight went well we don't think it's necessary for you to repeat it. It will be in the system tomorrow.

So you can move onto the I-3 rating next.

I still believe in real world my flight plan is as good as V3 OCN

And I 100% agree with you (I won't file a broken airway like that either), but the FAA doesn't for some reason. The more you look into the TEC system the more you'll see the weird routes, some make sense for complicated reasons, some not as much. However it's what we have to work with here.

Thanks for letting us know what happened.

[Keith Smith]

Bruce,

In the TEC system's defense, the briefing page for TECs in the AFD does state that if a route starts with an airway, the pilot can expect vectors or a SID to join it. So, they do make an attempt to address it.

I would enter the route into FF as SLI V23 OCN, or KRAUZ V23 OCN, but I would actually file "V23 OCN." Bear in mind, the non-passing grade was not a result of filing KRAUZ, that was just a comment from the controller as it pertains to the I-2, since the rating actually stipulates the route to file. Don't worry, you get to pick your own route on the I-4. In fact, that's the whole point of the I-4. The non-passing grade was because of the runway heading, which Peter has discussed and resolved.

Enjoy the I-3!

[bbuckley]

Thanks Peter and Keith. I've learned a lot and that's the objective.