VOR and NDB routes

[Marc Sieffert]

Hi! I am usually flying the Zibo on preset routes and I am now doing some flights on the Cessna 172 and learning about radio IFR navigation and have some questions. For ex what route would I have to enter in the flight plan to fly the following route (LFKF to LFKJ):

LFKF take radial 225° from VOR EGI 

Then turn right at the intersection to VOR AJO 337°

Then 6nm before AJO turn left direct to CF02 to catch the ILS 02

Would something like this be ok for the route in a flight plan?:

VOR225°  AJO337° 

 

Thanks!!

 

[Andreas Fuchs]

When flying IFR you are supposed to use official departure and arrival procedures, that will be connected by airways. In your example you'd best use the AJO SID terminating at AJO VOR. The issue in LFKJ is now that non-RNAV are not accepted anymore, in theory you are not allowed to land there with conventional navigation methods under IFR.

You could proceed from AJO direct to the IS NDB and use it as IAF begin your ILS Z or Y approach to runway 02.

Edited November 20, 2021 at 05:30 PM by Andreas Fuchs

[Alistair Thomson]

Andreas is absolutely correct regarding commercial jet operations but it is also possible to fly a Cessna 172 IFR if properly equipped. These little planes are not expected, and almost certainly not able, to fly STARs and SIDs so the flight plan would use significant points referring to radio navigation kit on the ground, like VORs and NDBs. They would therefore fly outside designated ATS routes.

Take a look at, for example,  skybrary.aero/articles/flight-plan-completion and scroll to Item 15. It specifies there, under (4) Significant point part (c),  how to enter these significant points in the form.

[Marc Sieffert]

Thank you the example below from your link answers I think my question...

Example 1: a point 170° magnetic at a distance of 20 NM from VOR “LDZ” should be expressed as LDZ170020.

Example 2': a point 130° magnetic at a distance of 12 NM from CONTI point should be expressed as CONTI130012.

So I was nearly right just to add the distance...

Thanks again!

[Alistair Thomson]

Well, that may not quite be complete! There will be some DCT scattered in there somewhere, I think. :)

[Andreas Fuchs]

IFR is IFR, why don't you just follow the required airspace rules? In Europe there are more and more countries where you cannot fly IFR without PBN, VOR-only won't be enough then. SIDs and STARs are not for jets only!

Sure, for VATSIM you can file as you like. What's your goal for your flights?

[Marc Sieffert]

As I said above I usually fly the B737 Zibo for a few years now and I am of course used to SID and STARS, and Victor airways etc...  I always use them there. But I was told that for small planes such as the Cessna 172 SID and STARS are most of the time not appropriated and that other departures or arrivals would be more suitable...

This is one of the answers I got in a previous thread from "J", one of the threads where you replied also:

"SID and STAR are designed for commercial jets for the most part (see the altitude and speed restrictions in many.  A Cessna 172 can't meet them for most part)"

and I was interested to get some experience in radio navigation with VOR and NDB, that's the reason why I came up with this route. Also to use the different instruments as the two CDI's in this plane as well as the NDB instrument... To train another way to fly... even if not always PBN -)-) But of course I want to remain within IFR rules... for small planes in this case with the Cessna...

Edited November 20, 2021 at 10:47 PM by Marc Sieffert

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hmmm, I don't think that I wrote that, did I?

And the SID to AJO can be flown conventional.

[Marc Sieffert]

1 minute ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Hmmm, I don't think that I wrote that, did I?

And the SID to AJO can be flown conventional.

No, you did not, as I said "J" (Joel) said this, you participated to this thread a few comments before...

Joel said also:

"Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see major airport ATC assigning you an SID or STAR.  Just imagine Jets having to fly behind a Cessna172...the traffic backups!  They would vector you in and out instead."

But I think the issue is more or less clarified...

Thanks!

[Andreas Fuchs]

Okay, you got me confused there 😄

Essentially, when flying IFR, even with a C172 you can follow SIDs, make sure the climb-gradients can be attained. If ATC needs you on an alternative route, they will tell you so.

[Magnus Meese]

As for the OPs initial question: Your exact routing example should be filed as navaid identifiers if overflying a navaid, and navaid bearings+distances if routing via radial-distance-fixes. This one would be "DCT FGI225008 DCT AJO157006 DCT AJO232005 DCT". All points and departure/destination must be linked by either an airway, procedure, or "DCT", hence the added "DCT"s at the start and end. However, avoid this type of routing if you can. The best conventional way to fly from LFKF to LFKJ is to file "AJO DCT IS". You will leave LFKF on either AJO 3G or AJO 3N SID as assigned/selected based on the runway, and after flying to AJO you will route direct IS which is an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) and can be used as the final point in your route when STARs does not exist or does not apply to your flight. At IS you start the ILS Y full procedure to runway 02 as per the approach chart, first flying a teardrop entry to the IS published hold, then you can skip the hold and join the AJO 11DME Arc southbound, then join the AJO 232 radial to finally interecept the 02 localiser. It is weird that the AJO departures does not clearly specify safe levels, but we can look at the LFKF VOR approach charts to find the MSA inside 25nm to FGI, and both SIDs keep us in the 6000ft sector. Note that to avoid terrain you will have to climb at a rate as specified in the SID Chart, and if you're on the AJO 3G you will have to cross FGI at or above 6000ft. In other words, 6000ft is a sensible cruise level for this flight. Due to the long distance flown from IS NDB to final, it is not necessary to descend lower than 6000ft before reaching IS.

On 11/20/2021 at 5:29 PM, Andreas Fuchs said:

 The issue in LFKJ is now that non-RNAV are not accepted anymore, in theory you are not allowed to land there with conventional navigation methods under IFR.

Reviewing the French AIP GEN1.5 and the AD for LFKJ, there is nothing prohibiting non-RNAV flights to LFKJ. The only restriction is that France does not allow non-RNAV IFR above FL115, or on any RNAV airway below FL115. It would likely be a painstaking process to phone the relevant offices and ATS units to get a flightplan through if you wanted to do it IRL, and the easier option would probably just to attempt to book it out from the plane on the ground or in the air without a full flightplan. Anything more regular than a one-off would probably require the operator to work with the ATS unit(s) to create company specific procedures for their type of operation.

In short, there's no blanket ban on non-RNAV IFR ops, but for anyone other than military/state aircraft it is heavily regulated in many countries. In practice, almost noone flies completely non-RNAV and as such it is a moot point.

On VATSIM: File a flightplan which makes sense for your equipment and capabilities and have fun. Select routes and cruise levels which ensures required terrain clearance, don't plan SID/STAR/Procedures you cannot use. Plan conventional SID/STAR if available, and if not link your initial waypoint with "DCT" and make your final waypoint an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) for a conventional approach. If presented with RNAV procedures by ATC, simply state "Unable due to non-RNAV, request [as filed/direct <point>/conventional procedure/vectors]. Don't let the "You can only fly LNAV/VNAV to a Precision Approach" crowd dissuade you from having fun with conventional navigation.

 

[Alistair Thomson]

6 minutes ago, Magnus Meese said:

almost noone flies completely non-RNAV and as such it is a moot point

Statistically that's absolutely true, but folks doing IR training in light singles (like Marc) will use non-RNAV techniques before graduating upwards. So it isn't moot, actually, just statistically unusual.

[Andreas Fuchs]

1 hour ago, Alistair Thomson said:

Statistically that's absolutely true, but folks doing IR training in light singles (like Marc) will use non-RNAV techniques before graduating upwards. So it isn't moot, actually, just statistically unusual.

Training "conventional navigation" will nowadays be mostly approaches, not the enroute bit. You can also practice VOR and NDB navigation under VFR.

PS: flight schools usually operate at and around airfields where they can practice all this stuff, but they would not enter large and busy airports that often, if at all. Later on, when flying on faster and more powerful twin engine planes, this may be a different thing again.

Edited November 21, 2021 at 10:02 PM by Andreas Fuchs

[Magnus Meese]

18 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

Statistically that's absolutely true, but folks doing IR training in light singles (like Marc) will use non-RNAV techniques before graduating upwards. So it isn't moot, actually, just statistically unusual.

Thank you, I should have qualified that a bit more. There are reasons to do it and it does happen, especially for training. Though I'd dare to guess that almost all IFR trainers in use today have B-RNAV as a capability at minimum, and would rather file and fly RNAV compliant and simply request the specific procedures and manoeuvres required in-flight and not depend the entire flight upon being conventional only, as Andreas points out.

Still conventional isn't gone, and while planes and crews likely would have zero issue using FMS version of a procedure when a navaid is out of service, it's not legally possible (at least not where I am in the UK) and alternative procedures or good old radar headings have to be used instead.