June 4, 201411 yr OK, I occansily do IFR with the Cessna Skyhawk in FSX. I have some questions about how this would work. So the first question is, should I be flying direct, on victor airways or some other route? I looked on flightaware and found some routes for GA, but I'm not really sure if this is a proper source for this type of flying. So what route is appropriate for GA? Also, if flightaware really wouldn't work, what source should I be using to find a route? I am also flying with the default GPS in FSX with no addon GPS. Thanks very much. :rolleyes:
June 5, 201411 yr First of all, the term GA refers to the type of aircraft operations used as well as the aircraft complexity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_aviation has a good explanation of the category. The type of aircraft and how you wish to operate it will determine whether low altitude victor (below 17,500 feet) or jet routes (18,000 feet and above to I think FL410) are used. A corporate aircraft may or may not b capable of cruising in the jet altitudes. Aircraft flying at 18,000 feet and above must be conducting controlled flight (IFR). Aircraft flying below that may be required to use controlled flight depending if they have a certain minimum passenger capacity and are commercially registered carriers or charter operations. RC supports controlled or uncontrolled fields (ATC tower or not) frequently used by smaller aircraft. In this case RC emulates a radio call to FSS (USA) of FIS (other) or via telephone for filing and clearance delivery with limited time plan activation in the air. For instance, Bemidji Airlines flies a Fairchild Dornier SA-227DC Metro (twin-turboprop) KMSP to Duluth filing cruise at 11,000 feet. They fly direct KMSP GEP038019 (VOR) KDLH. If they used victor routes it would be longer as KMSP GEP V505 RZN V505 DLH KDLH by a few miles. The radar guided DP allows the more direct former route. Altitude 11,000 feet works best for this twin propliner for this short distance using direct routing below higher altitude traffic. (The 227 is certfied to 25,000 feet). GEP038019 means fly bearing 019 from GEP here. Not sure about the 038. Skywest flies filing 19,000 with a CRJ-200 jetliner KMSP GEP J21 DLH KDLH. Here the higher altitudes are more performance efficient and ATC prefers J21 routing. Generally excluding convenience of fleet, turbo-props/props work short hops best at lower altitudes. Delta (as NW airlines) flew Saab 240B turbo-props routing the same as Bemidji did here. In summary, the aircraft performance capacity, performance efficiency for the route length including best climb and descent profile for the most efficient altitude, and finally traffic avoidance\ATC preferences will determine the cruising altitude and airway type you will use.
June 5, 201411 yr Author Ronzie, the aircraft I use for GA flying is the Cessna 172 SP. A flight example would be KCMA to KSMO. Do you think going direct would be right for this type of flight?
June 5, 201411 yr A flight example would be KCMA to KSMO. A flight like this would typically fly a TEC (Tower Enroute Control) route. There are a number of sites that describe preferred TEC routes for SoCal, depending on aircraft type and performance. You might check out, for example: http://myflightroute.com/inputtec.php . Scott
June 5, 201411 yr Author A flight like this would typically fly a TEC (Tower Enroute Control) route. There are a number of sites that describe preferred TEC routes for SoCal, depending on aircraft type and performance. You might check out, for example: http://myflightroute.com/inputtec.php . Scott Yea, I think I have heard of TEC routes before. Just didn't remember the name. Thanks for the site, I'll check it out.
June 5, 201411 yr Nice site tttocs!!! On flightaware, two aircraft, a C172G and a PA28R/G (Piper Cherokee Arrow) used the TEC route VTUN13 at 5,000 feet. Here's how it filled out: http://myflightroute.com/craft.php?start=KCMA&end=KSMO&routeid=VTUN13&altitude=5000 Let me know if RC handles this OK. It does meet the requirement of a VOR in the route. The distance is about 60 nm by the path. KCMA VTU GINNA V326 VNY V186 DARTS KSMO/0008 M/H FL WIND ATCTO NM AWY M/C TAS G/S ZT ACTME ETA ATA ACBO ABO REM AREM N3406.8/W11902.9 145 CLB 000000 LAXVTU 108.20 006 DCT 145 324 324 00/01 00/01 .../... 0002/... 0037/... N3411.1/W11857.8 044 CLB 000000 LAXTOC 006 DCT 044 324 324 00/01 00/02 .../... 0004/... 0035/... N3413.3/W11849.9 044 50 000000 LAXGINNA 00-0 DCT 044 437 437 00/00 00/02 .../... 0004/... 0035/... N3413.3/W11843.2 075 50 000000 LAXSUANA 006 V326 075 437 437 00/00 00/02 .../... 0005/... 0034/... N3413.4/W11835.6 075 50 000000 LAXCANOG 006 V326 075 437 437 00/00 00/03 .../... 0005/... 0034/... N3413.4/W11829.5 075 50 000000 LAXVNY 113.10 005 V326 075 437 437 00/00 00/04 .../... 0006/... 0033/... N3412.4/W11818.6 096 50 000000 LAXTOD 009 V186 096 437 437 00/01 00/05 .../... 0007/... 0032/... N3409.3/W11816.1 096 DSC 000000 LAXDARTS 003 V186 096 311 311 00/00 00/06 .../... 0007/... 0032/... N3400.9/W11827.0 213 DSC 000000 LAXKSMO 012 DCT 213 311 311 00/02 00/08 .../... 0007/... 0032/... badly formatted here. I need to get a drop box where I can attach links to files I create since direct attachments are no longer allowed here.
June 6, 201411 yr Author Nice site tttocs!!! On flightaware, two aircraft, a C172G and a PA28R/G (Piper Cherokee Arrow) used the TEC route VTUN13 at 5,000 feet. Here's how it filled out: http://myflightroute.com/craft.php?start=KCMA&end=KSMO&routeid=VTUN13&altitude=5000 Let me know if RC handles this OK. It does meet the requirement of a VOR in the route. The distance is about 60 nm by the path. KCMA VTU GINNA V326 VNY V186 DARTS KSMO/0008 M/H FL WIND ATC TO NM AWY M/C TAS G/S ZT ACTME ETA ATA ACBO ABO REM AREM N3406.8/W11902.9 145 CLB 000000 LAX VTU 108.20 006 DCT 145 324 324 00/01 00/01 .../... 0002/... 0037/... N3411.1/W11857.8 044 CLB 000000 LAX TOC 006 DCT 044 324 324 00/01 00/02 .../... 0004/... 0035/... N3413.3/W11849.9 044 50 000000 LAX GINNA 00-0 DCT 044 437 437 00/00 00/02 .../... 0004/... 0035/... N3413.3/W11843.2 075 50 000000 LAX SUANA 006 V326 075 437 437 00/00 00/02 .../... 0005/... 0034/... N3413.4/W11835.6 075 50 000000 LAX CANOG 006 V326 075 437 437 00/00 00/03 .../... 0005/... 0034/... N3413.4/W11829.5 075 50 000000 LAX VNY 113.10 005 V326 075 437 437 00/00 00/04 .../... 0006/... 0033/... N3412.4/W11818.6 096 50 000000 LAX TOD 009 V186 096 437 437 00/01 00/05 .../... 0007/... 0032/... N3409.3/W11816.1 096 DSC 000000 LAX DARTS 003 V186 096 311 311 00/00 00/06 .../... 0007/... 0032/... N3400.9/W11827.0 213 DSC 000000 LAX KSMO 012 DCT 213 311 311 00/02 00/08 .../... 0007/... 0032/... badly formatted here. I need to get a drop box where I can attach links to files I create since direct attachments are no longer allowed here. OK, I tried this flight out and took the vectors to KSMO for runway 21. I landed safely but the only thing that got my attention was that RC vectored me too far away from the airport on downwind. The turn to base I think may of been too far too. And if you ask, I had prop checked in the general box of RC. Do you know why this happened? I also almost ran into a mountain since where they put me at on downwind was a few miles north of Van Nuys and Burbank with high terrain. I really don't know why I was so far out. The plan loaded correctly in RC but I just don't get why the vectors were so far out. Any ideas?
June 6, 201411 yr "Short FinalApproach turns you to downwind. “Ugh. Do I really have to get so far out from the airport?” You can ask Approach for a Short Final, an early turn onto base/final anytime while on their downwind legs. Short final is available on the Menu Display page 2. Approach will accommodate this request according to traffic load." From the rc43 manual page 55. Page 2 is the extended menu (9) by default. By default RC uses a longer downwind assuming a long final in IFR conditions at busy airports. ATC uses long finals to merge arrivals from multiple directions to "get ducks in a row" for orderly separation on final regardless of aircraft type. If VFR conditions exist you can request visual dropping radar but then the rest of the traffic pattern, separation, and landing is your responsibility. You must be able to see other aircraft and have the runway in sight at all times to request visual.
June 6, 201411 yr http://www.iflightplanner.com/Resources/PreferredRoutes/ is useful for finding TEC, low, and high altitude preferred routes. It covers all of the US and also can show on a sectional/WAC type chart. It also resulted in the same route as did http://myflightroute.com/inputtec.php Here is the FAA database query for all types as well of preferred routes: http://www.fly.faa.gov/rmt/nfdc_preferred_routes_database.jsp (Leave out the "K" for US airports). It gave the same preferred route as myflightroute did. Just enter the airport codes to show multiple options for easier entry.
June 6, 201411 yr Author http://www.iflightplanner.com/Resources/PreferredRoutes/ is useful for finding TEC, low, and high altitude preferred routes. It covers all of the US and also can show on a sectional/WAC type chart. It also resulted in the same route as did http://myflightroute.com/inputtec.php Here is the FAA database query for all types as well of preferred routes: http://www.fly.faa.gov/rmt/nfdc_preferred_routes_database.jsp (Leave out the "K" for US airports). It gave the same preferred route as myflightroute did. Just enter the airport codes to show multiple options for easier entry. It wasn't only that they sent me too far out for a base leg turn, the other problem is that the distance from the aircraft to the airport was too far out on downwind, NOT the turn from downwind. The turn from downwind was too far too, but when I was on downwind I was too far away from the airport. Hope that makes sense.
June 6, 201411 yr The MSA used by RC should keep you high enough to avoid obstacles in the classic patterns although it is an averaged one. In this case a referral to charts and requesting an IAP from approach to do your own routing would be best. Note this comment on the VOR approach for KSMO: Circling not authorized northwest of 3-21 http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/SMO/IAP/VOR+OR+GPS-A/pdf Also note the preferred route takes to to DARTS, the entry to a twelve mile final for 31 or circling for 3. Put DARTS in your plan and request an IAP. Note the FAA does not show an over water entry, possibly because of safety or traffic conflicts.
June 7, 201411 yr Author The MSA used by RC should keep you high enough to avoid obstacles in the classic patterns although it is an averaged one. In this case a referral to charts and requesting an IAP from approach to do your own routing would be best. Note this comment on the VOR approach for KSMO: Circling not authorized northwest of 3-21 http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/SMO/IAP/VOR+OR+GPS-A/pdf Also note the preferred route takes to to DARTS, the entry to a twelve mile final for 31 or circling for 3. Put DARTS in your plan and request an IAP. Note the FAA does not show an over water entry, possibly because of safety or traffic conflicts. What I usually do with the MSA is change it to the FAF alt for the runway that I want to land on. I guess I shouldn't do that?
June 7, 201411 yr RC uses the MSA approximately for its merge on final usually before the FAF which is closer in. Data was from a third party source. Compare it to IAP charts. Again, it is an averaged value of surrounding quadrants. It may not avoid obstacles not in line with final that are not average. Use the NOTAMS option to deviate on altitudes to follow IAP charts without RC complaining. NOTAMS for departure is different in that you have to notify RC when you are on course ready to follow exactly RC commands.
June 8, 201411 yr An add-on gauge such as one of these two can help in rough terrain: http://www.dbsim.com/TerrainMap/dbs.terrainmap.htm for FSX or FS9 (Reviewed on AVSIM). http://www.dbsim.com/Taws/dbs.taws.htm for FSX only. Use as pop-up gauge or place in panel. I'll be checking the FS9 gauge.
Create an account or sign in to comment