In reply to:
Improvements will happen Joe. You can’t believe the changes I’ve seen in my career. They just don’t happen as fast as folks would like for them to happen. Sometimes that’s a bad thing. Sometimes it isn’t.
Fair enough.
Joe
In reply to:
For those still reading this thread… http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189197-1.html
Don Brown
NATCA_ZTL Safety Rep.
Don,
Very nice article!
Some observations:
-
You’re not really “an old-fashioned, pain-in-the-butt busybody”. Well, maybe old-fashioned, but that’s what works.
-
I learned a lot - I’m going to go back and read ALL your AVweb articles.
-
Everyone’s “still reading this thread” - now that it’s back at the top of the heap!
-
You don’t look anything like I imagined. Sure that’s you?
Thanks!
- Mike.
Don, Thanks for the article. I enjoy all of the insights your articles provide.
Maybe I’m thick and misunderstood your column, but if I’m asked “say on course heading” I should respond with my current desired track (as if I just pushed Direct To from my present position)?
And if I’m simply asked “Say heading” then I should respond with my current heading wherever I happened to be pointed to right now?
In practice, I’m asked “say heading” more frequently than “say on course heading”
In reply to:
Don,
Very nice article!
- You don’t look anything like I imagined. Sure that’s you?
Thanks!
- Mike.
Thanks Mike. And the picture is of my twin brother. We’re identical but I’m really prettier.
Don Brown
NATCA_ZTL Safety Rep.
In reply to:
- You don’t look anything like I imagined. Sure that’s you?
Mike,
Don was nice enough to give me and my two sons a fine tour of ZTL last year. Trust me, he does not look anything like the picture that runs with his columns. I don’t know who that mean looking guy in the picture is, but Don is really very pleasant.
In reply to:
Today I file GPS direct to Fort Worth. Mag course (track) is 181 degrees. My HEADING is 177 degrees today with wind. Local controller always clears me direct and says “SAY ON-COURSE HEADING”.
I usually say 181, and file for an ODD flight level. Wrong?
Randy,
As far as I know, 181 (Mag Course) is the correct number to use. And it’s not splitting hairs, because the aim is to be at a different altitude to someone who’s flying direct FROM Fort Worth to LNK… better to split hairs than split airplanes!
But… with a course of 181, should you not file for an EVEN level?
- Mike.
In reply to:
But… with a course of 181, should you not file for an EVEN level?
- Mike.
OOPs!
I meant EVEN…(already filed at 10,000, really!)
In reply to:
Don, Thanks for the article. I enjoy all of the insights your articles provide.
Maybe I’m thick and misunderstood your column, but if I’m asked “say on course heading” I should respond with my current desired track (as if I just pushed Direct To from my present position)?
You’re not thick-headed David. There is no correct response to “say on course heading.” There is no official meaning to “on course heading” so there can’t be a correct response.
In reply to:
And if I’m simply asked “Say heading” then I should respond with my current heading wherever I happened to be pointed to right now?
Correct.
Thanks for reading.
Don Brown
NATCA_ZTL Safety Rep.
In reply to:
OOPs!
I meant EVEN…(already filed at 10,000, really!)
Randy,
I believe you! When I read your post, I thought… “Hmm, that’s a little… odd!” [;)]
- Mike.
As I understand it, and following the “tell the controller what he(she) asks for” rule, you should answer “177” when asked for your on-course heading, but file for a cruising altitude based on your mag course (181).
When heading roughly north or south the cruising altitude separation scheme becomes much less effective anyway, so you’ve got to be more alert no matter which altitude you pick.
I heard somewhere that in Florida they have an informal “rule” for just that reason, where you cruise at odd altitudes when travelling southbound and even when travelling northbound (or vice-versa, I can’t remember).
Joe
If my ground track and heading would imply different altitudes, my reply to a controller who asks for course heading, or just heading, is usually to give him both heading and ground track. It only takes an extra moment to say “heading 179, and ground track 185”…the controller knows why I am saying that, and it avoids any followup discussion or confusion about why I’m flying (or requesting)an even altitude.
In reply to:
Here’s how I would file the route of flight it using GPS direct…
SUG360008 SOT180026 HRS330011
The nice thing is that DUATS does it automagically for you.
Jerry,
If you read some of Don’s other columns, you’ll see that some of the things DUAT(S) does automagically can leave controllers scratching their heads. Not your example; getting VOR radials&DME’s are just what they’d like to see. But sometimes DUAT(S) spits out lat/longs, and while those are good for GPS consumption, the controllers have no ready reference as to where the &#(*$&# you are trying to go.
Thanks for the clarification, Curt.
You have to select ‘direct routing for GPS/Loran’ for it to work properly.
If you select ‘user selected routing’ it does the stuff that drives Don nuts.
What I don’t know is how it gets input if you physically call a FSS and the briefer puts in a direct route, my guess is that it’s the LAT/LON stuff.
In reply to:
What I don’t know is how it gets input if you physically call a FSS and the briefer puts in a direct route, my guess is that it’s the LAT/LON stuff.
Where do you think the DUATS programmers learned to put in the Lat/Longs ? From the FSS guys. Want to know where the FSS guys learned it from ? The Center controllers. We have met the enemy. It is us.
This all started decades ago with Center controllers giving guys 1,000 mile vectors – direct-- on the midnight shift. I remember having “cheat sheets” taped to the sector with the Lat/Longs for commonly used fixes on the midshift. We weren’t exactly breaking the rules…we were just bending them way out of shape.
After a few incidents (airliners getting into missile ranges, airplanes turning in unexpected directions, etc.) we started learning that just because it was possible didn’t mean we ought to be doing it. Too late. We’d let the Genie out of the bottle and it turned into a monster.
Don Brown
NATCA_ZTL Safety Rep.
In reply to:
Mike,
Don was nice enough to give me and my two sons a fine tour of ZTL last year. Trust me, he does not look anything like the picture that runs with his columns. I don’t know who that mean looking guy in the picture is, but Don is really very pleasant.
Don’t pay any attention to him Mike. I’m mean and grumpy and if you mess with me I’ll send you to EWR. For eternity !
Don Brown
NATCA_ZTL Safety Rep.
Don,
Filing via DUATS out of Lincoln, NE to ANYWHERE I always get cleared “DIRECT”, then they ask ME “say on-course heading”.
But, local ATC seems confused and/or annoyed with the VOR/radials/distance waypoints that DUATS lists along the whole route. They are much happier if I DELETE all the DUATS waypoints, and type in the word “DIRECT” in my flight plan.
What should I do? Is it better to leave all the waypoints for all the other controllers along my flightpath, or is the word “DIRECT” just fine with everybody?
In reply to:
Don,
Filing via DUATS out of Lincoln, NE to ANYWHERE I always get cleared “DIRECT”, then they ask ME “say on-course heading”.
But, local ATC seems confused and/or annoyed with the VOR/radials/distance waypoints that DUATS lists along the whole route. They are much happier if I DELETE all the DUATS waypoints, and type in the word “DIRECT” in my flight plan.
What should I do? Is it better to leave all the waypoints for all the other controllers along my flightpath, or is the word “DIRECT” just fine with everybody?
Don and Randy,
Randy has brought up a point that intrigues me.
I have found in different parts of the country “direct” flight plans are more the norm than in others. After reading DonÂ’s columns, I have found using this trick works in most places.
Using AOPA’s Real Time Flight Planner, I enter my route as direct. Then I use the “rubber band” feature of the Flight Planner to include a few VORs in the route.
For example, I enter KRMG (Rome, Georgia) to KJGG (Williamsburg, Virginia) and select direct. In my plane, this shows a no wind trip time of 2:28.
Next I use the rubber band feature to slightly “bend” the route to include Sugarloaf Mountain VOR (SUG) and Danville VOR (DAN) as waypoints. Noting that that route takes me into an MOA, I also add Lawrenceville VOR (LVL) to the route to avoid the MOA, just out of personal preference and because it is not much of a diversion. The Flight Planner shows that these changes from the direct route add a whole minute to my flight, 2:29. Without the addition of LVL, there is no change in time, at least not rounded to the minute.
This flight involves two centers, Atlanta and Washington. I am sure the Atlanta controller working me off of Rome knows where SUG is located, even if he or she has never heard of KJGG. I am not sure if DAN is in Atlanta Center airspace or Washington Center airspace. I know it is somewhere near the border of the two, but I bet the controllers on the north side of Atlanta Center and the south side of Washington Center know where DAN is located. And, by the time I get to DAN, I am sure the controller knows where KJGG is located.
I have found that on most trips I can find VORs in each center’s area that can be added to the “direct” route without adding more than a few minutes to the entire flight. Don, in your view is this an acceptable practice? It seems to avoid being asked the “say on course heading” question, because the controllers I encounter know where my waypoints are located.
And, do controllers, as Randy’s post seems to suggest, find it annoying, difficult, or whatever, to deal with flight plans that have a series of “VOR/radials/distance waypoints that DUATS lists along the whole route.” I know it is a lot easier for me to program in the VOR as a way point, as opposed to some DME/radial point, and I suspect it might be easier for the controller to deal with just the VOR as the point on the glass to which I am heading.
In reply to:
Don,
Filing via DUATS out of Lincoln, NE to ANYWHERE I always get cleared “DIRECT”, then they ask ME “say on-course heading”.
But, local ATC seems confused and/or annoyed with the VOR/radials/distance waypoints that DUATS lists along the whole route. They are much happier if I DELETE all the DUATS waypoints, and type in the word “DIRECT” in my flight plan.
What should I do? Is it better to leave all the waypoints for all the other controllers along my flightpath, or is the word “DIRECT” just fine with everybody?
Randy,
Let me answer it this way – with a question. What does “the book” say you should do ?
If you want to make me happy you’re going to have a fullt-time job. And the things that make me happy probably won’t make any other controller happy. IOW, my happiness doesn’t factor into it and it shouldn’t factor into it for you either.
I am concerned about your safety. (And mine. I fly and my house is also under those that fly.) The safest way to fly in this system is to do it just like the book tells you to do it.
Don Brown
NATCA_ZTL Safety Rep.
In reply to:
Don, in your view is this an acceptable practice?
Only if it complies with the AIM, Todd. I can see where it would in some cases and might not in others. And yes, some controllers find a bunch of fix/radial-distances annoying. That’s just tough for them. It’s an acceptable practice according to the AIM.
I will say this Todd. When I get a flight plan proposed direct to some place that I don’t recognize and have to figure out where they are going…
I reroute them. And I do my best to do just what you mentioned. I try to route them in a straight line using whatever VORs they pass over. It’s not always possible, but you can come real close. And I always have a good laugh at the guy that files radial/fix distances and doesn’t miss the VOR by 3 miles.
BZM012002…BLF098001…etc.
Seems like an awful lot of trouble. And I sure would hate to get a Full Route Clearance full of R/F-Ds just to miss the VOR by 2 miles.
Don Brown
NATCA_ZTL Safety Rep.