PilotEdge Forums

Kim Ellis wrote:I would be interested in that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I found some sort of official history or analysis of the planning for rwy 27. What I read was a good, healthy discussion about how it came to be the way it is.

Here it is: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/121357/

BUMPED BY MY OWN POST! So... bump.....

My photo journal from the flight here.

My thanks to all the pilots for joining and to the PE controllers for doing such a great job on the other end!

Cyrus wrote: My photo journal from the flight

Nice journal of the flight, That was a lot of fun thanks for organizing it! I was flying ASH1.

Cyrus wrote:My photo journal from the flight here.

My thanks to all the pilots for joining and to the PE controllers for doing such a great job on the other end!

Superb photos and great presentation.

Thanks Captain Cyrus for a most enjoyable flight. I apologise for not being able to slow down more and cause havoc, but as any PMDG B747-400 captain knows, there is a huge amount to do when flying such a low altitude short flight, especially as the sole pilot flying. The real world frequency changes of PE add to the workload to the point where you are barely able to cope. As it was, my landing was not as good as this morning's practice run, but I was pleasantly surprised none the less. At least one checklist went out the window and I had a slight altitude violation on final approach.

My thanks also to PE ATC for allowing me to file a non-standard flightplan. I now have some homework to learn how to file a flightplan that keeps the plane's FMS and PE's ATC's happy at the same time.

I look forward to your next adventure Captain.

Kim, it can be done with a r/w FMS, but if the virtual avionics aren't up to the task, or if you're equipped in the r/w with avionics that can't handle a mix of airways and random radials, you can always fall back on just flying using simple VORs. One of the guys on the flight was flying a T38/A, using VOR/DME and not much else.

Cyrus wrote:BUMPED BY MY OWN POST! So... bump.....

My photo journal from the flight here.

My thanks to all the pilots for joining and to the PE controllers for doing such a great job on the other end!

Very nice, Cyrus! Great job to all last evening. I had a lot of fun.

Keith Smith wrote:Kim, it can be done with a r/w FMS, but if the virtual avionics aren't up to the task, or if you're equipped in the r/w with avionics that can't handle a mix of airways and random radials, you can always fall back on just flying using simple VORs. One of the guys on the flight was flying a T38/A, using VOR/DME and not much else.

The problem was I can't remember everything and I was very busy yesterday with non-sim things. BTW, is there no 'as filed' on PE?

Kim Ellis wrote:

Keith Smith wrote:Kim, it can be done with a r/w FMS, but if the virtual avionics aren't up to the task, or if you're equipped in the r/w with avionics that can't handle a mix of airways and random radials, you can always fall back on just flying using simple VORs. One of the guys on the flight was flying a T38/A, using VOR/DME and not much else.

The problem was I can't remember everything and I was very busy yesterday with non-sim things. BTW, is there no 'as filed' on PE?

Kim, I think that you are mixing up terminology and concepts with your reference to an "as filed" clearance. The name for the type of clearance to which you are referring is called an abbreviated clearance versus a full route clearance. An abbreviated clearance allows controllers to clear you "as filed" in order to reduce verbiage so long as the following conditions are met:

1) The route of flight filed with ATC has not been changed by the pilot, company, operations officer, input operator, or in the stored flight plan program prior to departure.
2) All ATC facilities concerned have sufficient route of flight information to exercise their control responsibilities.
3) When the flight will depart IFR, destination airport information is relayed between the facilities concerned prior to departure.
4) The assigned altitude, according to the provisions in para 4−3−2 (of the ATC handbook, 7110.65), Departure Clearances, subpara e, is stated in the clearance.

The last three are a bit more explanatory than required to answer your question, but please take a look at the first item. In the case of a route that requires editing (let's say because of the requirements of the overall ATC system due to the existence of coded departure routes, TEC routes, inter- or intra-facility LOA's (Letter of Agreements), or other routing that is in place due to system-wide delays, demands, and/or SWAP (severe weather avoidance plan) considerations), you will receive either an entirely new route which would require a full route clearance or an amendment that connects to a portion of your existing route, if that is at all possible.

In your case last evening, your route did not comply with a TEC route for aircraft flying from SBA to SAN; therefore, I could not issue you an abbreviated clearance (e.g., say "then, as filed") because I needed to change your route altogether.

When you have a moment, you may want to read through both of these documents:

AIM, Chapter 4, Section 4:
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat ... 404.html.1

Instrument Procedures Handbook, Chapter 2:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... /CH-02.pdf

The ATC system, to a large extent, is very fluid and dynamic. When it comes to routes, what may work one day may not work another day due to any number of circumstances, many of which I described above. As a pilot, you have to be prepared for route amendments, as is usually the case here in the N90 (New York TRACON) control area. With some research, you can discover the preferred routing and can even rely on past practice in order to better predict what may or may not work; but, depending on the day, it can be coin a toss at some airports as to whether or not your route will be accepted (or maybe that's just FRG!).

Fortunately for pilots in this area (SoCal), as long as you file the TEC route, you should be good to go, unless (as mentioned previously) there are LOA's (Letters of Agreement) between two airports that trump the actual predefined TEC route (e.g., TOA-SMO, EMT-LAX, etc.).

Bloody hell mate, you are amazing. Thank you for the measured and detailed response. I promise I will follow up on this as you suggest, as soon as I get some downtime.

Kim. people are given 'as filed' on a routine basis. Cyrus included a reference to the preferred routing (ie, what you would be cleared for) as part of the briefing information for the flight. Those that filled it were basically given 'as filed.

preferred routes in socal often involve airways and radials.

one interesting thing about the routes is that there are often fixes along the way which make fms programming a lot simpler, but the fixes aren't included in the routing. your best bet is to review the route on a low enroute chart and determine the best way to execute the route.

sometimes, though, the best way still involves just tuning a vor.

writing these posts on a phone is painful, sorry about the caps or lack of.