Filing Radar Vectors?
Ken Anderson
Does anyone know if it's legal (or at least common) to actually FILE for
radar vectors?
Thanks,
Ken Anderson
Piper Turbo Arrow III N40441
Ed Krol
>Does anyone know if it's legal (or at least common) to actually FILE for
>radar vectors?
You might read the thread "RV with no vectors". In fact
the reason I filed RV was the the "computer at FSS
wouldn't take" the incorrect airway number I tried to put
in from memory. So I just filed the last 30 miles as RV
and it took it just fine.
If you read Don M's response, the problem is that RV
never gets communicated to the controller.
Then of course theres the safety issue of if comm is lost
no one knows what you should be doing.
.
David Kuechenmeister
: Does anyone know if it's legal (or at least common) to actually FILE for
: radar vectors?
Just off the top of my head, it wouldn't make much sense to file for radar
vectors, since that doesn't leave a clear route for lost comm purposes. I
have always considered radar vectors to be the default departure
instructions if a SID isn't specified.
Regards,
--
Dave Kuechenmeister |
___________(T)___________
++ o (\_/) o ++
o
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
So I just filed the last 30 miles as RV
and it took it just fine.
Exactly what do you write in the flight plan to file radar vectors?
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Lorne Shantz
-> the reason I filed RV was the the "computer at FSS
-> wouldn't take" the incorrect airway number I tried to put
-> in from memory. So I just filed the last 30 miles as RV
Why not just substitute the RV with Direct? That will work.
Lorne
Ed Krol
>In article <3pptme$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> kr...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Ed Krol) writes:
> So I just filed the last 30 miles as RV
> and it took it just fine.
>Exactly what do you write in the flight plan to file radar vectors?
It was over the phone and I said "V291 DEC RV"
and they accepted it.
Marshal Perlman
: Does anyone know if it's legal (or at least common) to actually FILE for
: radar vectors?
Are you IFR?
Well, here is what I do, and I have *never* had a problem with it. Well,
OK just once.
I file, via DUATS, my flight plan like I normally would -- however -- when
I enter my route -- I just type "DIRECT". Both the computer and controller
know that my IFR route is direct. Direct = RV to ATC.
*NOTE* I would not suggest using this flight log as your REAL flight log.
You loose ATC in the soup and you'll have a wee bit of work to do! Do one
via Victor airways like you normally would -- because more than once has
ATC told me that direct was not possible... and 9 times out of 10, they'll
give me my "backup" - or let me use it if I ask.
I guess it would depend on where you live, but here in Floridaland, ATC
is pretty easy going -- even in Orlando's Class B. In Southern California,
where I got my Private, I think it is against the FARS to even look at the
Class B with the naked eye..
Departure point [MLB]: MLB
Airport KMLB: Melbourne FL
Destination [TPA]: TPA
Airport TPA: Tampa FL
Current Time: Tue May 23 03:26 (UTC)
Departure time (UTC) hhmm, +mmmm, or "NONE" for no-wind plan [0424]:
Flight Planner Routing
Low-Alt Airway Auto-Routing 1
Jet Route Auto-Routing 2
VOR-Direct Auto-Routing 3
Direct Routing for LORAN 4
Direct Routing for RNAV 5
User Selected Routing 6
Select function (or 'Q' to quit) [6]: 6
Enter route [direct]: direct
Routing options selected: Direct.
Flight plan route:
KMLB TPA
Total distance for this route is 99.4 nm.
Use this route [Y/N]? [Y]
Enter aircraft tail number [N202HF]: n202hf
Select Aircraft Performance Data
PA28-161/WARRIO 1
M20J/MOONEY 2
PA31-350/CHIEFT 3
C172RG 4
Input Data For This Flight 5
Modify Stored Aircraft Profiles 6
Select function (or 'Q' to quit) [3]: 3
Adjust stored aircraft performance data for this flight [Y/N]? [N] n
Cruise altitude [4000]: 4000
GTE DUATS FLIGHT PLAN
From: KMLB -- Melbourne FL
To: TPA -- Tampa FL
Time: Tue May 23 04:24 (UTC)
Routing options selected: Direct.
Flight plan route:
KMLB TPA
Flight totals: fuel: 24 gallons, time: 0:36, distance 99.4 nm.
Ident Type/Morse Code | | Fuel
Name or Fix/radial/dist | | Time
Latitude Longitude Alt. | Route Mag KTS Fuel | Dist
---+--------+---------+-----| Winds Crs TAS Time |------
1. KMLB Apt. | Temp Hdg GS Dist | 0.0
Melbourne FL |--------+----+---+------| 0:00
28:06:10 80:38:45 0 | Direct 24.2 | 99
---+--------+---------+-----| 030/14 269 157 0:36 |------
2. TPA Apt. | +17C 273 164 99 | 24.2
Tampa FL |--------+----+---+------| 0:36
27:58:32 82:31:00 0 | | 0
---+--------+---------+-----| |------
NOTE: fuel calculations do not include required reserves.
Flight totals: fuel: 24 gallons, time: 0:36, distance 99.4 nm.
Average groundspeed 164 knots.
Recalculate plan at a different cruise altitude [Y/N]? [N]
Use this information to file a flight plan [Y/N]? [Y]
DUATS File Flight Plan
1 Type of flight plan: IFR
2 Aircraft tail number: N202HF
3 Acft type/special equip: PA31/A
4 True airspeed: 160
5 Departure point: MLB
6 Departure time: (UTC) Tue May 23 04:24
7 Altitude: 40
8 Route of flight:
9 Destination: TPA
10 Estimated time enroute: 0036
11 Remarks:
12 Fuel on board: 0400
13 Alternate destination(s): PIE
14 Pilot's name: MARSHAL H PERLMAN
Address: (DELETED)
Phone no.: 407 676 4331
Aircraft home base: MLB
15 Number aboard: 5
16 Color of aircraft: W/Y
17 Dest contact name: FRED SMITH/SIGNATURE AVIATION
Phone no.: 813-???-????
(See, the system didn't complain about #8 being BLANK [blank=direct])...
--
Marshal Perlman Internet/MIME: per...@fit.edu
Florida Institute of Technology ICBM Mail: 28.06N 80.38W IRC: Squawk
School of Aeronautics FAA: Commercial/Instrument/ASEL/AMEL
Melbourne, Florida 32901-6988 Member: AOPA/AAAE/Goodyear Blimp Club
Telephone: (407) 455-4809 URL: http://sci-ed.fit.edu/~perlman
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ed Krol
>-> From: KR...@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Actually I should have but I was caught off guard with
with the airway being long and I quickly thought
that Direct C16 didn't make sense IFR since
C16 didn't have a navaid. But after the fact
I could have realized that I should have done Direct CMI
which is the IAF vor the vor approach into C16.
Carl R. Kessel
low time IFR pilot).
When I file DIRECT aren't I taking responsibility for navigation (and implying I've
got the legal equipment)? If ATC was to give me a clearance containing RADAR
VECTORS wouldn't that be a commitment on their part to provide navigation?
I've always considered RV to be a convenience for either me or ATC (or both), to be
provided as the situation warrants. Since I fly right up against the MSP Class B,
radar vectors are a welcome and useful fact of life, but I haven't thought of them
as something that I should file for and rely on.
Carl Kessel...
Scot Cline
MP> : Does anyone know if it's legal (or at least common) to actually FILE
MP> for : radar vectors?
MP> I file, via DUATS, my flight plan like I normally would -- however --
MP> when I enter my route -- I just type "DIRECT". Both the computer and
MP> controller know that my IFR route is direct. Direct = RV to ATC.
Actually, direct means that you are capable of flying the route on
your own nav, and not that you want radar vectors. If you want radar
vectors, file TUL RV MEM, or put request radar vectors direct. ATC
often gives you instructions like, "fly heading 100, when able direct
MEM", this is just to get you going into the right direction till
you have the RNAV, or GPS setup. When you file a flight plan you
are supposed to be able to fly that route, and ATC works you like
you can.
I once had a guy file DSM (Des Moines, Iowa) direct ADS (Addison, TX).
When he got over Tulsa, I asked him if he was direct since he was
30 degrees right of direct, he replied he was not capable of going
direct and was flying the initial vector assigned in Iowa. As he got
south, he ran into more of a crosswind and would have been 50 miles
west of Addison.
... Is it ok to use my AM radio after NOON?
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Donald C. Moore
INRE: Re: Filing Radar Vectors?
POSTED:05-23-95 @ 03:48
p>Direct = RV to ATC.
Sorry, That is not correct. If you file direct, I assume you know
how to do that. If you loose comm on departure and WX doesn't allow you
to maintain VFR to land, what are you going to do? How am I going to
know what you are going to do? If I say, proceed direct, how will you
do it?
All kinds of questions here.
Don Moore
STD DISCLAIMER: It is MY opinion, NOT my employer's
Written on 05/23/95 @ 10:39PM CENTRAL TIME
ATCS, COMM MEL, past MEI
CMPQwk 1.42-17þ 9084 WINTER is Nature's way of saying, "UP YOUR'S!"
David E Allen
: When I file DIRECT aren't I taking responsibility for navigation (and
: implying I've got the legal equipment)?
Yes. Let me clarify... I suggested filing direct from the motel room (with no
charts available) and amending the routing when I called clearance delivery
after looking at the charts. So although I have filed direct, I haven't
accepted a clearance that I can't fly.
: If ATC was to give me a clearance containing RADAR
: VECTORS wouldn't that be a commitment on their part to provide navigation?
Apparently not, since that information is not passed along. Sounds like a
"crack" in the system. I'm not sure why/how the system even accepts this on
a flight plan.
dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Stan March
I read the interesting replys but somehow have not become convinced.
My opinion is no, it not legal to file any flight plan that contains
radar vectors.
Never in my flying experience have I ever been given any radar vectors
without first having a clearance limit and route to fly. The entire IFR
system of checks and balances, no radio, etc., is based on the ability of
the pilot to fly to their intended destination by their own ability.
Sure radar vectors are common but they are always an overlay of a direct
clearance.
As far as that nice DUATS printout, it's of a direct clearance. Almost
100 miles direct, but not a "radar vector" clearance.
On a different level of discussion. does it make any sense to file a
flight plan (that's YOUR flight plan) including external unknown
instructions (radar vectors)? Can you fly the plan? If the radios take a
shit what do you do? (get religious?)
As far as being in a hotel room with the charts in the airplane, I've
also been there many times. My suggestion, and it's what I always do, is
call FSS, get a complete briefing, then confess to the FSS person that my
charts are in the plane. Could they please help me out with a routing to
file. Works 100% of the time. Actually, when it's evening and the
weather is bad or going down, it's been my experience that FSS's are
quiet and the specialists are eager to help. Ever get the feeling when
up in IMC getting tossed around and the radio is quiet that there might
be a reason that all the rest of the folks down there didn't launch?
Well they didn't bother to stay long on the telephone with FSS so the
briefer is usually free to help with "extra" services.
Interesting to get an official FAA answer to this on (but I'll still file
to my destination on airways and route segments. Thanks anyway).
Stan
<=-----------------------=>
BGS...@prodigy.com
Arrow 2719C Islip NY (ISP)
<=-----------------------=>
Roy Smith
> : If ATC was to give me a clearance containing RADAR
> : VECTORS wouldn't that be a commitment on their part to provide navigation?
>
> Apparently not, since that information is not passed along. Sounds like a
> "crack" in the system. I'm not sure why/how the system even accepts this on
> a flight plan.
I'm sort of confused. Around here, it seems like *every* clearance starts
with vectors to some intersection, then airways after that. Am I really
supposed to be turning those clearances down? I'm not RNAV equipped, but
I can certainly find the intersection. I may not be able to fly straight
to it, but I can always intercept the airway it's on.
I don't remember if it was this thread or not, but somebody was talking
about a clearance which included an intersection only defined by DME and
not having DME aboard. In that case, you can't identify the intersection
at all, which seems like a different problem. But if it's an intersection
defined by a 2-VOR fix, why not?
--
Roy Smith <r...@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
Diana L. Carlson
>When I file DIRECT aren't I taking responsibility for navigation (and implying I've
I have and will probably continue to file RADAR VECTORS on certain routes.
Launching out of Bedford to go to Hyannis I will put down:
BED RV BOS V141 GAILS DIRECT HYA
Why? Cuz it doesn't matter what you file, ATC will READ your clearance as
RV when you pick up your clearance. Should I lose radio during "RADAR
VECTORS", failing all other overriding clearances, I would fly direct
Boston. Because that is where they are expecting me to go.
Note that there are NO navigational aids other than Boston, unless you
want to fly west or southwest before flying east...unless you can go direct
cuz you have GPS :-)
--
->Diana L. Carlson Work: (508)287-7459 Fax: (603)889-9592 <-
->Ham: KC1SP Work: d...@genrad.com Home: swee...@sweetpea.mv.com <-
->I'D RATHER BE FLYING! Comm-AMEL-I,PP-ASEL-I CAP: CPT, NHWG, Profile 176 <-
->GenRad, 300 Baker Ave MS/1, Concord, MA 01742 <-
Ed Krol
>Why? Cuz it doesn't matter what you file, ATC will READ your clearance as
>RV when you pick up your clearance. Should I lose radio during "RADAR
>VECTORS", failing all other overriding clearances, I would fly direct
>Boston. Because that is where they are expecting me to go.
When I started the other thread (RV wo vectors) this was my
situation, too. Note that even if you have completely filed an
route to your destination, ATC doesn't know what you are going
to do at the end if you lose radio. You follow the procedures
for enroute but as I remember it, you can fly any approach
you like into your destination airport. So the bottom line is
that if I had filed
...DEC V??? CMI with destination C16
or
...DEC RV C16
if I lost communications ATC would have had to treat me
the same because once I get to CMI they don't
really know what I am going to do except try to do an
approach to C16. If I am flying the RV and lose comm, the
only navaid I could use to get to C16 is CMI.
All you people who said you both gotta know what is
going to happen think about radar vectors expect the
visual, losing radio, and not breaking out.
I guess there are two points in this:
1. ATC and the Pilot need to know what they are each
likely to do in the result of radio outage. As long
as they do as expected things will be come out OK
and there would likely be no violations reported.
(If I lost comm and flew present position - CMI - approach
to C16 it would be OK to all involved. If I decided to do a
180 and fly back to St Louis I doubt that it would
have been OK).
2. You can take some liberties with "whats expected"
if you know the area. THis is the bedford - boston
situation, and was my situation in going to Ann Arbor.
Carl Kessel
convinces me that I should be filing flight plans containing radar vectors.
It seems to me that the key point is that my flight plan should be something I CAN
DO ALL BY MYSELF if I need to (e.g. lost comm). My experience is that RV is great
for everyone, and ATC and I are both glad they are used, but all of the arguments
I've seen here for filing RV are cases where the pilot filing wants (and hopes to
get) the convenience without accepting the responsibility for what happens if RV's
become unavailable. People have advocated filing RV and then elaborated on the
procedure they would use if comm failed; I argue strongly that the "alternative"
should be what gets filed. We all know that RV's are ubiquitous, and in our local
areas we know pretty much exactly when we'll get them, but even though there may be
"a crack" which allows RV to go into a flight plan I don't see the justification for
it.
Carl...
Donald C. Moore
INRE: Re: Filing Radar Vectors?
POSTED:05-25-95 @ 07:35
d>I have and will probably continue to file RADAR VECTORS on certain
d>routes. Launching out of Bedford to go to Hyannis I will put down:
A little stubborn are we? <VBG> A point though, how can you fly
RVs unless initiated by ATC? Maybe it is anecdotal in nature but the
evidence indicates you can't. If there was no radar coverage, could you
make this flight and if so, how? Sometimes it seems an act of futility
(filing proper routings that will be modified by ATC) and when these
acts of futility are repeated often enough we quit doing the correct
thing.
d>BED RV BOS V141 GAILS DIRECT HYA
d>
d>Why? Cuz it doesn't matter what you file, ATC will READ your
d>clearance as RV when you pick up your clearance. Should I lose radio
d>during "RADAR VECTORS", failing all other overriding clearances, I
d>would fly direct Boston. Because that is where they are expecting me
d>to go.
EXCELLENT interpretation of lost comm. But, the RVs in effect are
not correct for filing because if the radar quit turning, you'ld have to
stay on the ground. <G> Not being familiar with your area, is it
reasonable that you would either be receiving BOS shortly after
departure and/or only a short period of time ded reckoning would be
needed to get to BOS VOR service limits?
d>Note that there are NO navigational aids other than Boston, unless you
d>want to fly west or southwest before flying east...unless you can go
d>direct cuz you have GPS :-)
Such is life. Regardless, it would seem that filing routes that
meet navigational requirements is optimum. HOWEVER, knowledge that ATC
will open up their bag of tools to either make the route longer or make
the route shorter (The only results that can occur once changes are made
<G>); knowing what to expect simply gets you one up on these sort of
changes.
Don Moore
STD DISCLAIMER: It is MY opinion, NOT my employer's
Written on 05/25/95 @ 1:46PM CENTRAL TIME
ATCS, COMM MEL, past MEI
CMPQwk 1.42-17þ 9084 Software Independent: Won't work w/ any software
Donald C. Moore
INRE: Re: Filing Radar Vectors?
POSTED:05-25-95 @ 14:02
c>People have advocated filing RV and then
c>elaborated on the procedure they would use if comm failed; I argue
c>strongly that the "alternative" should be what gets filed...
Well said.
Don Moore
STD DISCLAIMER: It is MY opinion, NOT my employer's
Written on 05/25/95 @ 1:53PM CENTRAL TIME
ATCS, COMM MEL, past MEI
CMPQwk 1.42-17ş 9084 I still miss my ex-wife, but my aim is getting better.
Marshal Perlman
: to maintain VFR to land, what are you going to do? How am I going to
: do it?
That is why I said "cover your ass" with a backup. You can fly from
A to B with RV all the way if ATC lets you. IF you loose ATC in the IMC,
yea, it is bad. But what if you loose the VOR in IMC? I always have more
than one plan to cover my butt. Espically in FL where VORs don't always
work as designed.
--
Marshal H. Perlman Telephone: (407) 952-0547
Information Technology Director Fax: (407) 728-8464
American Motor Works Company Voice Mail: (407) 455-4809
2870 Kirby Avenue, N.E. World Wide Web: http://www.iu.net/amw
Palm Bay, Florida 32905 FAA: Commercial/Instrument/ASEL/AMEL
Internet/MIME: per...@iu.net Member: AOPA/AAAE/Goodyear Blimp Club
Marshal Perlman
: radar vectors.
: Never in my flying experience have I ever been given any radar vectors
: without first having a clearance limit and route to fly.
Well, I am able to do it all the time. Just the other day I heard...
N659FT cleared to Jacksonville via radar vectors --- Runway Heading --
3000 feet -- expect 5000 10 minutes after departure... etc.
Stan March
>
>In article <3ptm4s$g...@dawn.mmm.com> "Carl R. Kessel" <crke...@mmm.com>
writes:
>>When I file DIRECT aren't I taking responsibility for navigation (and
implying I've
>>got the legal equipment)? If ATC was to give me a clearance containing
RADAR
>>VECTORS wouldn't that be a commitment on their part to provide
navigation?
>
>Launching out of Bedford to go to Hyannis I will put down:
>
>
as
>RV when you pick up your clearance. Should I lose radio during "RADAR
>VECTORS", failing all other overriding clearances, I would fly direct
>Boston. Because that is where they are expecting me to go.
>
>Note that there are NO navigational aids other than Boston, unless you
>cuz you have GPS :-)
>
>
>->Diana L. Carlson Work: (508)287-7459 Fax: (603)889-9592
<-
>->Ham: KC1SP Work: d...@genrad.com Home: swee...@sweetpea.mv.
com <-
>->I'D RATHER BE FLYING! Comm-AMEL-I,PP-ASEL-I CAP: CPT, NHWG, Profile
176 <-
>->GenRad, 300 Baker Ave MS/1, Concord, MA 01742 <-
So today (Thursday, May 25) I filed ISP-JFK-COL-3N6. Waited on the
ground for 1/2 hour because Center had equipment (radar?) problems. So
how could a filed plan listing "radar vectors" work? I was cleared FRG
JFK COL direct.
Got some RV's after though.
In the NE corridor, RV's are common. However, filing for RV's is
meaningless if the radar is out and you may NOT be able to fly the actual
route!
As I think I said before, as long as you've gotten a clearance limit to
get to and a way to fly it, you're ok. But one might not want to file
IFR to Charlie East with radar vectors to Bermuda.
Ron Schnell
>: My opinion is no, it not legal to file any flight plan that contains
>: radar vectors.
>
>: Never in my flying experience have I ever been given any radar vectors
>: without first having a clearance limit and route to fly.
>
>Well, I am able to do it all the time. Just the other day I heard...
>
>N659FT cleared to Jacksonville via radar vectors --- Runway Heading --
>3000 feet -- expect 5000 10 minutes after departure... etc.
Just because you "heard" it doesn't mean you "filed" it.
Every time I tried to file "RV", the FSS person told me
that I could not file that, and he said he would put
in DIRECT. If you have successfully filed what you think
is radar vectors, it is quite possible that the briefer
actually just made it direct. To get cleared radar vectors
is very common, and often standard procedure in some terminal
areas.
I think that DUAT won't let you type RV, am I wrong?
#Ron
Marshal Perlman
Yes it does. I filed it. It was ME.
: I think that DUAT won't let you type RV, am I wrong?
No. But you can do DIRECT. In my neck of the woods they assume that
direct is RV. Your mileage may vary. However, one guy reading this thread
gave me a good idea just-in-case. Put that you want to use RV in the REMARKS
section.
Scot Cline
MP> Well, I am able to do it all the time. Just the other day I heard...
MP> N659FT cleared to Jacksonville via radar vectors --- Runway Heading --
MP> 3000 feet -- expect 5000 10 minutes after departure... etc.
You will be routinely given a clearance with radar vectors initially,
however, this is just to get you away from the airport enviroment and
then on course. If you lose your radio or ATC instructs you to resume
own navigation, you still have to be able to fly your flight plan on
your own.
In the above example, I am assuming Jacksonville isn't that far away
(you have a Florida area code), in which case the pilot will
probably be able to receive Jacksonville soon after departure.
... Back up my hard disk? I can't find the reverse switch!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Scot Cline
MP> : I think that DUAT won't let you type RV, am I wrong?
MP> No. But you can do DIRECT. In my neck of the woods they assume that
MP> direct is RV. Your mileage may vary. However, one guy reading this
MP> thread gave me a good idea just-in-case. Put that you want to use RV in
MP> the REMARKS section.
I think you are confusing radar phraseology with actual intent. No
controller assumes you want radar vectors all the way. When you are
told by the controller "fly heading 100, when able proceed direct",
the intent is that you have an initial heading till you have your
equipment setup, and that you navigate own your own in a few minutes.
If I ask, you would you like vectors direct or you ask for vectors
direct, we both know what is going on. Even if you put it in the
remarks that you want rv direct, confirm it with ATC, i.e. "Verify
this is for direct MIA", if ATC doesn't state it.
... All things are possible except skiing thru a revolving door.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Bob Furtaw
wrote:
GTE Duat accepts RV.
--
Bob Furtaw W8IL e-mail: fur...@popmail.mcs.com
CFI-A-I/M/G, CGI-A/I