Jump to content

San Diego Departure Question


Recommended Posts

Tonight I decided to go lower and slower out of KSAN to Las Vegas with the DC-6B. I filed BRDR7.JLI TNP.CLARR2 at 15,000' for my flightplan. The controller wanted me to accept the PEBLE6.SXC LAX DAG.CLARR2 at FL250 because that was the SOCAL preferred route from KSAN to KLAS. I reminded him that I was in the DC-6B with a service ceiling of 25,000' and that I doubted I make FL250 before I had to start my descent. He said then I couldn't use the CLARR2 because of the 24,000' crossing restriction at MISEN.

 

So, we talked and I accepted PEBLE6.SXC LAX DAG Vectors Direct KLAS. I struck up a private chat with the young man and asked why the BRDR7 existed if the preferred route used the PEBLE6. Both Departures eventually get the aircraft to the northeast and the BRDR7 can be used off either runway 9 or 27, whereas the PEBLE6 is a runway 27 exclusive departure. I also pointed out that the BRDR7 avoids the crossing restriction at MISEN by going TNP-GFS-CLARR. The minimum altitude on the route is 12,000 the way I read the chart with a crossing restriction of 13,000' or above at CLARR. I could have met both of those requirements easily with the DC-6B.

 

The young man agreed and said he would question the ZLA staff about it and see why the route wasn't in the SOPs. In the meantime I thought I would post here. And before anyone jumps in with "You're the PIC, don't take what you can't fly" or "Feedback at the ARTCC" this was not a case of that. The young man was polite and understanding...not demanding...and I think I was too. I accepted the PEBLE6 because I have flown it many times and enjoy the "hands-on" VOR tuning, radial watching, heading flying nature of the Departure. I just wanted something different tonight, but not enough to "make waves".

 

Turns out I shouldn't have accepted the PEBLE6 either. I didn't realize I could never make the crossing restriction at MELDY of 14,000' or above. I barely made LAX at 15,000' and was watching real hard for those LOOP8 guys crossing LAX at 10,000' or above also headed to Daggett VOR.

 

So, what is the BRDR7 for anyway? When is it used? Seems to me it is the perfect departure for low and slow aircraft heading to Las Vegas or points beyond rather than sending them over the busy LAX corridors. I wondered at that and asked the young man controlling SAN_TWR about it and he agreed that it made sense. Not everybody flies "big tin" with 22,000+ lbs of thrust from each engine.

 

Randy

Randy Tyndall - KBOI

ZLA I-11/vACC Portugal P4

“A ship is always safe in the harbor. But that’s not why they build ships” --Michael Bevington ID 814931, Former VATSIM Board of Governors Vice President of Pilot Training

1087023

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a disclaimer; I am not an instrument rated pilot IRL nor am I an air traffic controller IRL.

 

First off, I am glad that you had a positive and constructive discussion with the controller. Hopefully you will get some follow up on your question from the controller or ZLA staff in the near future. You, as the PIC, can certainly not accept any routing which you cannot perform, and that should not be a negative event rather a positive one, so don't dismiss that ability.

 

You know, preferred routes are just that; preferred. They are not required routes. They exist to improve efficiency in the system. In a real life system with thousands of movements, they make sense. That said, you are not required to file one. Glancing over the BRDR7, I see nothing that would preclude you from filing or expecting that route as reasonable. The departure does exist for a reason, as it's not a simple process to just develop a departure procedure for an airport. In a busy system, going up through JLI may conflict with some inbounds and it does run counter clockwise of flow, but is it restrictive? absolutely not. The only consideration from an ATC standpoint would be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uring that the aircraft leaves it's airspace from an approved departure gate.

 

I pulled up on Foreflight, routes filed/approved for flights from SAN to LAS and it showed me:

 

RYAHH V514 GFS V538

SXC LAX DAG KEPEC3

JLI TRM EED TYSSN

PEBLE6 SXC LAX DAG KEPEC3

LNSAY5 FALCC SLI POM DAG KEPEC3

 

With your flight and altitude, I may have explored filing the first route in this list. It actually similarly mirrors what you were trying to accomplish in the first place. I guess what I want to illustrate, is that while preferred routes exist, there is no necessity to fly them, nor should they be imposed on you without reasonable cause. I realize that ATC is a very precise science and rightfully so, but there is more too it than being strictly black and white.

 

Don't rule out flying VFR as well, conditions appropriate of course. You can still expect similar levels of service and will have even more flexibility in your routing. Take care, and safe flights.

 

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Nick, thank you for your response. I ultimately did what I probably should have to start with given the lack of responses here and sent ZLA a feedback form. I got a very nice reply from a staff member that said in a nutshell the BRDR7 was a perfectly viable route given my aircraft, equipment code.../A, and filed altitude. The real reason I didn't want to send feedback initially was the reply came with an apology as I was afraid it would. In my mind no apology was needed. I wasn't denied the departure, simply asked to use another. There was accommodation on both sides of the scope and I ended up in KLAS in a DC-6B like I intended when I logged on. No harm no foul...by anyone.

 

And...to be completely honest...I thought about accepting the departure and then flying the BRDR7 anyway. I knew from experience that Tower was going to release me to UNICOM as soon as I took off since SoCal and Center were neither one on line. It would have been easy. Depart, get released to UNICOM, set myself up on the BRDR7, resend my original flight plan and be on my way. But that would not have been in the spirit of VATSIM, would it? Nor fair to the controller in Lindbergh Tower.

 

And the real reason I posted here and the real reason I sent the feedback is that even after almost eight years on VATSIM I have never fully understood how DPs and STARs are built. Why they take the route they take and what drove their creation in the first place. What need does the BRDR7 fill in real life, even if it is not a regularly used DP on VATSIM? I know the short answer is Safety of Flight and keeping aircraft spaced, separated, and in a controlled environment where controllers can expect specific actions and reactions by the pilot in command. Even then, the unexpected does happen, even more reason to have the DPs and STARs. But to go further, let's take the PEBLE6 out of KSAN.

 

The DP calls for the departing aircraft to fly a heading of 290 degrees until crossing the OCN VOR 170 radial. Then turn to a heading of 315 degrees to intercept the Mission Bay 293 degree radial outbound. Why? Why not just turn on departure to intercept the 293 MZB radial? There must be a reason. Someone, somewhere, when creating this DP had to have said, "No, we can't turn direct to intercept and here is why...". That's what I really want to know...the why? If you know the "why" it goes a long ways to understanding why the DP path is so important and you...or me...as a virtual pilot hopefully tries that much harder to "fly it right" making the controllers' jobs that much more enjoyable.

 

It was not a case of (and inflection here would be awesome) "I don't wanna go to Santa Catalina"!. More like, "Why is SXC so important when departing San Diego"?

 

Hope this is clearer to everyone, but for the record...I have no complaint with the service I got out of San Diego the other night. The flight to KLAS was just as enjoyable as if I had flown any other route. Maybe more so because of the need for constant look out approaching KLAX and the dreaded LOOP8 where you never know which way they will turn and what altitude they'll cross LAX at. The ATC service was excellent and I said so in my feedback form to ZLA.

 

Anyway, there it is, and, again, thanks for the response Nick. Much appreciated.

 

Randy

Randy Tyndall - KBOI

ZLA I-11/vACC Portugal P4

“A ship is always safe in the harbor. But that’s not why they build ships” --Michael Bevington ID 814931, Former VATSIM Board of Governors Vice President of Pilot Training

1087023

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good FAA docomeent link. SID explanation begins on page 23, but the whole docomeent is really good in explaining how and why departure procedures exist and how they are created.

 

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/media/Chapter_1.pdf

 

I suspect initial routing on the PEBLE6 factors in noise abatement and/or separation. SAN inbounds from the north are often planned through MZB.

 

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Nick. Interesting read, even before the discussion on departures and arrivals. I found some others as well and browsed through them.

 

Thank you.

 

Randy

Randy Tyndall - KBOI

ZLA I-11/vACC Portugal P4

“A ship is always safe in the harbor. But that’s not why they build ships” --Michael Bevington ID 814931, Former VATSIM Board of Governors Vice President of Pilot Training

1087023

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...