Adding a route

[Robert Ogden 985378]

I've tried adding some routes from KMEM to other airports in surrounding ARTCCs (e.g., KATL). It won't allow me to insert SIDs or STARs into the route. I realize that in much of the world, SIDs and STARs are [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned by ATC, but that is not the case in the US. I believe vroute could be a great tool with the ability for ARTCCs to maintain the valid routes in the database, but in the US, if we cannot add SIDs and STARs then it is useless.

 

Am I doing something wrong? I'd read the docomeentation but the site is still nuked because of the download traffic

[Michal Rok]

Could you post here one or two examples of what was not accepted and what was the response? The SIDs/STARs, as long as they follow certain naming standard, should be silently ignored enabling you to include them in the route part.

 

 

Michal

[Robert Ogden 985378]

For instance: According to ZME's LOAs with ZTL, all aircraft departing KMEM and arriving KATL should be routed through either the RMG3 or the ERLIN2 (RNAV). I attempted this one earlier and didn't spend much time trying others because I had to leave.

 

MEM7 RMG RMG3

 

I got an error telling me that it did not recognize the MEM7 or the RMG3 as valid waypoints or something like that. (note: all KMEM departures are to be given the MEM7 as it is 'radar vectors'). I'll give the following a shot in a minute: MEM7 SALMS ERLIN2

[Robert Ogden 985378]

BAH...I just went and tried again...this time it accepted it

[Michal Rok]

Yes, I fixed it

 

 

Michal

[Robert Ogden 985378]

Michal, thanks! I've added all the KMEM routes that are defined by LOA. Now I'm working on KBNA's but it will not accept the SID. There is a little confusion about how to abbreviate it. On the chart it is spelled out "TITAN ONE (OBSTACLE)". Vroute will not accept TITAN1 or TIT1 either one.

 

EDIT: I think that TITAN1 is the preferred way to depict it on a FP. The full route is: TITAN1 MEM J66 LIT SASIE2 and I'm getting the error that reads "ERROR: Unknown airway/waypoint TITAN"

[Michal Rok]

Is there a fix called TITAN at the end of the departure procedure?

 

 

Michal

[Owen Catherwood 903683]

The TITAN1 is a remark-filed SID, as it does not have a departure code - the fix and code that appear in parenthesis underneath the departure/arrival name. In vRoute you'd put the first fix and in the remarks section put "TITAN1 DP" or "TITAN1 SID", while in VATSIM pilots should put that DP in their pilot remarks and not the route field.

[Michal Rok]

So what is the last waypoint of TITAN ONE departure?

 

 

Michal

[Michael Roy]

TITAN1 is a vector departure and there is no actual TITAN waypoint. I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that vRoute checks to see is TITAN if a valid waypoint and can't locate it.

 

Other Vector departures will work though, as long as there is a corresponding Fix that exists. For example, the ORD1 dep will work, since there is a ORD fix in the AIRAC (even though it doesn't actaully have anything to do with the ORD1 dep).

 

As Owen said, you wouldn't normally include a vector dep in your filed flight plan, just the first fix.

Edited April 2, 2007 at 10:29 PM by Guest

[Owen Catherwood 903683]

The TITAN1 doesn't have a last waypoint, because it does not have waypoints. The departure procedure is to fly runway heading or join a VOR radial outbound until receiving vectors to the first filed waypoint.

[Robert Ogden 985378]

Placing the TITAN1 in the departure tells us that the pilot DOES have that departure and agrees to fly it. It is "just radar vectors" true, but there are specific climb instructions that the pilot must be aware of (on rwy 2R on the TITAN1 for instance).

[Lawrence Woodworth 1003126]

I tried to add some KATL -> KIAD routes from DvA's preferred route database. Two went in fine but the third balked. The route I tried to enter was:

EAONE SPA J14 J51 FAK COATT4

VRoute said that airways J14 and J51 were unknown.

[Owen Catherwood 903683]

You have to put the fix which forms the intersection of J14 and J51 in, which I believe is CREWE.

[Matthew Horan 901577]

Placing the TITAN1 in the departure tells us that the pilot DOES have that departure and agrees to fly it. It is "just radar vectors" true, but there are specific climb instructions that the pilot must be aware of (on rwy 2R on the TITAN1 for instance).

 

The situation you describe is similar to something I encounter when controlling. Most SIDs in Canada are vectored SIDs, instead of pilot nav. In order to confirm that a pilot can fly the SID, we request that they make a note in their remarks section. Why there, and not the flightplan? In Canada, a SID is regarded as an ATC procedure, and treated as such; we'll [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign it in the IFR clearance, but it does not make an appearance on your strip.

[Lawrence Woodworth 1003126]

You have to put the fix which forms the intersection of J14 and J51 in, which I believe is CREWE.

Thanks, I wondered if that was the reason. The other two had fixes between J-routes.

[Jeff Turner]

Maybe get with Ian from simroutes.com since VATUSA has worked with him for so long and he has people from almost every VATUSA ARTCC that updates the routes etc.