Nameless intersections in TEC routes

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

While setting up a TEC route to fly today, I noticed that it called for two airways V64 and V363, but didn't specify the intersection between them. In fact, none of the TEC routes seem to specify the intersections between airways. How am I supposed to find them? Sometimes they are on the sectionals or TACs, but not always. Do I trudge through Simroutes trying to find the intersection? And in some cases there doesn't appear to be a named intersection between airways. What then? I suppose I could set up the VORs and watch the radials to see when I reach the intersection (this [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umes that all intersections will be referenced to a navaid somewhere, which I think is true [?]). Or I could guesstimate based on the chart. Or I could look up the exact intersection longitude and latitude in a huge file I found on the FAA site, use up a user waypoint slot in my GPS to enter it, and then put that in my route. This all seems to be terribly difficult, however. There must be a better way (?). Why doesn't the FAA name the intersections?

[Brad Littlejohn]

While setting up a TEC route to fly today, I noticed that it called for two airways V64 and V363, but didn't specify the intersection between them. In fact, none of the TEC routes seem to specify the intersections between airways. How am I supposed to find them? Sometimes they are on the sectionals or TACs, but not always. Do I trudge through Simroutes trying to find the intersection? And in some cases there doesn't appear to be a named intersection between airways. What then? I suppose I could set up the VORs and watch the radials to see when I reach the intersection (this [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umes that all intersections will be referenced to a navaid somewhere, which I think is true [?]). Or I could guesstimate based on the chart. Or I could look up the exact intersection longitude and latitude in a huge file I found on the FAA site, use up a user waypoint slot in my GPS to enter it, and then put that in my route. This all seems to be terribly difficult, however. There must be a better way (?). Why doesn't the FAA name the intersections?

 

Good question, but let me also answer this with another question.. While most of the time, the meeting of two different airways is at a named intersection, but should that etched in stone? There are a number of cases where the intersection of two or more airways isn't at a named intersection at all. So for example, you may be given a clearance like:

 

"Cleared to the Wazoo airport. on departure turn right heading 360, radar vectors direct XVF V369 V451 INDIE direct"

 

Where the routing is a TEC route from the Wazoo airport to Iliad Regional airport, and when en route, you basically join V451 where it intersects V369.

 

You are correct where a "fix" (note: not an named intersection) will be referenced from the location of a navaid. So in this case, Say that the intersection of V369 and V451 are at the XVF R-281, 31DME fix. This will give those aircrafts that are /A the ability to figure out where they would need to go with joining the other airway. At the very least, you there should always be a reference to a navaid for an intersection you are looking for.

 

BL.

[Eric Stearns]

To add a little to Brad's reply...there are thousands of airway intersections across the world, so naming every intersection would be problematic. In the case of V64 and V363 there is no named intersection [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with that point. One solution like you suggested is to just use the VOR receiver(s) to navigate the two airways. If you want to use an area navigation system, hopefully it has a way to create a waypoint (they all do in the RW, but I'm not sure about the default MSFS GPS). So, the intersection of V64/V363 is defined by the SLI 080 radial and the POM 164 radial, you might be able to create a fix by using those two radials.

[Keith Smith]

Anthony,

 

I was flying last night at the same time as you, Santa Barbara to Palm Springs, in an aircraft that had two VORs, no GPS, no moving map, no DME. I filed KWANG4.HENER V186 NIKKL V64 TRM. (I got the route from simroutes, but a glance at the low enroute chart would've yielded a similar decision).

 

Flying the route required very little planning in advance. In fact, I briefly ran over the full route, but really only focused on the first two legs of the KWANG4 departure so that my NAV1 and NAV2 radios and OBS would be set up. I flew the whole KWANG4 departure without really having to touch anything. It was only enroute to HENER that I set up one of my radios for the next leg.

 

Remember, the airways have been around a lot longer than aircraft have had GPS or even RNAV. They're perfectly flyable with VOR's, and it is not at all inconvenient. For intersections, the low enroute chart refers to the radial and name of the corresponding VOR.

 

What's also helpful (if you don't have DME, or if the VOR doesn't have DME (such has Homeland, HDF)), is to understand the distance of the leg you'll be flying (marked on the low enroute chart for each segment of the airway. That, coupled with knowledge of your groundspeed (either by deriving it using the time required to fly a known distance, or by asking the controller) means you can work out when you should be reaching your next waypoint.

 

It's a very engaging type of flying that forces you to maintain a high degree of situational awareness, but the actual workload of performing the navigation is generally not bad, and certainly doesn't require much planning on the ground. I'll often launch on a flight (on vatsim) only knowing the total distance, and how to get to the first VOR, and work out the rest in the air by studying the chart in the climb.

 

A low enroute chart is a key tool, though. While VFR sectional charts have SOME of the intersections, they only have a subset of the distance information provided on the enroute charts. The socal low enroute chart is L3-L4. Keep an eye out for expired ones, I picked up a full set from an FBO that just had them laying around. There are also online versions posted on avsim.

 

I encourage you to keep at it...I've seen you flying the socal skies for the past few nights, and I think you're taking your flying in the right direction. I'd also recommend you consider the ZLA Pilot Cert system (see sig). I think you'll find the course material will be right up your alley.

 

Keith

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

Flew the same route last night as Keith, only I had DME on board - fun route to fly, and yes I remember Anthony was the aircraft coming the opposite way down V64 headed to French Valley. He was in the Saratoga (N432KT) and I was in the Malibu (N301TL). You were something whisky if I recall.

 

As keith said - you fly the radial until you intercept the other. If I'm headed west say on the PDZ270 and need to intercept the POM180, I'll usually tune my VOR receiver to POM and set the heading to 160. When I cross that radial I know I'm getting close to my turn and will usually start it (for a 90 degree turn) somewhere between the POM175 and POM170. This greatly depends on the ground speed, winds, and turn rate of my aircraft.

 

As for looking it up in SimRoutes - because the intersections aren't published as part of the airway, SimRoutes actually doesn't handle these scenarios very well. There are a number of routes from the VNY area that take you down V186 and you have join V363. There is no intersection there, and it isn't even listed as a Lat/Lon in the FAA's airway intersection database - thus SimRoutes won't be able to help you out very much - until I add some predictive logic to determine where the radials intersect and create a temporary waypoint. This actually is possible, it's just low on my priority list

 

I'd also recommend the Pilot Certification program. It's a lot of fun to fly, gives you some interesting homework and adds a goal to your flying, contains great information, the controllers are familiar with it - plus you usually get some good ATC and traffic. Both IFR and VFR GA is well alive in SoCal.

 

Those TEC routes can easily keep you busy and amused for months. Aside from challenging radials to fly, they usually end with some fun non precision approaches into untowered fields - most of which you can fly using Procedure turns or holds. Aside from that - us controllers love that sort of traffic, some of us more than the heavy IFR stuff into KLAX et all.

 

See you in the skies again soon Anthony.

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

I see Keith's point: the airways preceded the era of named waypoints. Next time I'll try to find the intersection with VORs. Also, this discussion reminded me that I can define user waypoints based on the intersecting VORs in my GPS or FMC, which is way easier than defining them with longitude and latitude. But I should be able to fly them directly.

 

Yes, last night was a busy night. It's a four-day weekend here in France (May Day, the equivalent of Labor Day), and the siren song of SoCal airspace is irresistible. I'm N1574W in the Baron, and N1229L in the 747-400 (and N2239F in the 737-800). I usually fly the Baron in SoCal, both IFR and VFR, for the experience, and to give controllers a bit of variety, since I presume they get tired of guiding in nothing but heavy iron on the CIVET5 arrival. Last night I think it was KPHX to KLAX, KLAX to KMYF, KMYF to KLAX, KLAX to F70 (French Valley), F70 to KCMA, and perhaps some other stuff. These are nice little routes that mostly begin and end in SoCal airspace. Sometimes I fly pure IFR with GPS and all, sometimes IFR with just VORs, sometimes VFR under similar conditions. Sometimes it's VFR outside of controlled airspace, without ever talking to ATC, although I monitor Center or some other appropriate frequency. It provides all sorts of different practice. And even when I don't ever talk to ATC, it provides some realistic background traffic on their scopes, which I imagine is a bit more interesting than just an empty airspace with 747s filing in and out of LAX.

 

Lately I've seen more GA traffic in SoCal than I had seen in previous months; seems like a good thing. I should think that every pilot would start out in a small GA aircraft just to be on the safe side, but I'm surprised by how many start out in a huge airliner. From what I hear on the radio, I get the impression that many of them never do more than enter waypoints into a GPS or FMC, and then let the aircraft do the rest. I do that if it's realistic (as it would be for large airliners, because they always fly that way), but not all the time. I should think it would be boring to do for every single flight.

 

I do confess that I'm on autopilot most of the time in crowded airspace, and especially if I'm IFR. The workload for IFR seems quite high even with autopilot and drifting away from [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitudes and headings can be hazardous when there are big jets about. I've understood that many real pilots of small GA aircraft hand-fly the aircraft continuously; if so, either they're really good at hand-flying or they don't do much IFR or crowded airspace (perhaps both). I'm trying to do more hand-flying. I tend to loiter around the Southwest even when skies are quiet, and then I try to fly by hand a bit more.

 

I don't know if I'm ready for any kind of certification. I'm still screwing up a lot of stuff.

 

I note that not all controllers seem familiar with TEC routes; I suspect they don't see them very often. Yesterday I was given an amended route that was in fact the very TEC route that I had filed. I note that airports that cannot accommodate at least a 737 tend to be very quiet in SoCal. Perhaps there is a correlation. I don't know what proportion of IFR TEC routes represent in real life (?).

 

One thing I rarely see on VATSIM is very heavy traffic with multiple controllers at each position, i.e., multiple Center and Approach controllers, multiple Tower, etc., as in real life. I guess there's just not enough traffic or controllers available to make it practical. I rarely have to look out the window to find any traffic at all, but in real life I'd be obligated to look around constantly. Of course, in real life, there would be fewer aircraft drifting astray, too, which would compensate a bit.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

I note that not all controllers seem familiar with TEC routes; I suspect they don't see them very often. Yesterday I was given an amended route that was in fact the very TEC route that I had filed.

 

Hmmmmmmm. All controllers are trained pretty extensively in the TEC route system. It would be appreciated that if you do come across such instances, that you leave us some feedback (http://www.laartcc.org/feedback.php) so we can get the controller some additional training, or clear up something he doesn't understand.

 

Lately I've seen more GA traffic in SoCal than I had seen in previous months; seems like a good thing.

 

Check out our upcoming event (http://www.vatusa.org/WebCalendar/view_entry.php?id=127&date=20070512). You should enjoy it!

[Keith Smith]

Anthony,

 

TEC routes are sometimes modified by the controller based on traffic. I was safety pilot for a friend who flew IFR this w/end out of KMMU to KGON. He filed the TEC route, and got something slightly different. It really depends on what's going on at the time. Try including the TEC route code in your flight plan remarks, or for the route itself, that's a good way to get the controller's attention.

 

Honestly, if traffic is light, some controllers might just give you a more simplified route than what is in some of the TEC routes (KBUR to KSAN is a good example!). If you would specifically LIKE to fly the TEC route, mention it to the controller. I'd be surprised if they wouldn't give it to you. If you come across a ZLA controller that is NOT familiar with the TEC system, please file a feedback report and we'll correct it. TEC is an integral part of flying Socal in real life, and we try to ensure that it is understood by our controllers. This being a volunteer hobby, the system isn't perfect, though, and we need your help in making corrections, so file that feedback (http://laartcc.org/feedback.php). To be clear, nobody gets in 'trouble', the feedback system is the best way we can solicit comments from pilots to improve the service we provide. Keep the comments objective, and we're happy to act on them.

 

ZLA definitely sees more than just a conga line of planes into KLAX, trust me. You would be correct, though, in that the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B/C airports see vastly more traffic than the Deltas. Stick around for another week or so for an announcement about that in the ZLA forums.

 

Regarding the rarity of seeing multiple approach controllers...it varies from night to night and area to area, but outside of an event, it's common to just see one or two towers, one or two approaches, and a center. Here's a screenshot of an event on the east coast recently. Note the controller list...

 

 

Lastly, you are absolutely ready for the Pilot Cert system. Don't let the name fool you, it's much more about education, not testing. There's tons of reference material that you'll enjoy, and some fun flights that area similar to what you're doing now.