Question for controllers

9

95redTA

Well-Known Member
I fly for a part 135 company in and out of pensacola 5 days a week Filed equipment code /a (dme/xponder) Anyways Im filed to panama city direct to the PFN vor. The computer will always throw out varre pfn which keeps us clear of the restricted(s) and my clearence is read radar vectors varre as filed. Upon contacting approach they ask us to go direct varre at which point we reply unable request vector, Normally its not an issue as they will give us a heading or ask if we have navarre bridge in sight wich is at varre intersection. But depending on who is working this one guy makes a big deal about it asking why we are filed direct varre if we cant. First off we arent filed that way its assigned (radar vectors varre as filed). Second off if we are /a why is he telling me to go direct to a fix. Third we can intercept the 104 radial off the NUN vor to varre but that will usually send us through navy pensacola's final which they dont like and a vector would make much more sense as we will be out of the way quicker. Doing this daily I know if its a 110 or a 120 heading depending on where I am but I still cannot accept direct as im not gps equipped which is why we ask for a heading. This one guy makes such a big deal about it he has tried to get me to reroute to a vor/airway to the north that will take an extra 15-20 minutes (not acceptable which we are on a tight schedule and simply having me fly a heading would suffice like it does everywhere else we fly. ) Ive never had problems anywhere as far as us operating with no gps even the washington dc area is more than willing to help us.

Monday im going to try to visit the tracon on my layover to resolve this as today they assigned me direct and I told him I had the bridge in sight and would procede to that if it was ok. At which point he said ok. My company departed 20 minutes behind me and did the same thing at which point the controlled responded no fly heading...... so i guess some of you have gps since your company took direct.

anyways any ideas? I obviously dont want to have these guys pissed at us (penalty vectors). But we arent doing anything wrong and I dont like the fact that he is broadcasting I took direct as that has been a issue with the feds before with a few of our employees.


Hope that made sense 3am and just had a few cold ones.
 
First, the "direct" is habit simply because 90%+ aircraft these days are GPS equipped. I hardly everlook at equipment codes.
The controller who is giving you a hard time is an idiot, he should be able to tell from the strip what you filed and what the computer put in there. You really can't do much (read as can't fix stupid [controller])except maybe find the radial from PNS to VARRE and file that.
 
Agreed, the controller giving you a hard time is an idiot. I'd say nowadays it's gotta be somewhere above 95% that has some sort of GPS on board. I can only think of Flight Express in and around ATL that doesn't have it an when I give him aircraft direct somewhere, by mistake, and he comes back that he cannot, that just reemphasizes to me to RTFS (read the #### strip) and pull my head out of my ass.
 
I can't help you from the controller side, but from the pilot side, I can say that you're not the only one having that type problem.
 
I may be out of my crib here, not sure about 135, but under 91, if you can see the bridge, you can accept direct. Your method of navigation, ie., pilotage, is up to you. You do not need a gps to go direct. If you use electronic equipment, it must be approved, but pilotage and dead reckoning are always approved.
 
nosehair said:
I may be out of my crib here, not sure about 135, but under 91, if you can see the bridge, you can accept direct. Your method of navigation, ie., pilotage, is up to you. You do not need a gps to go direct. If you use electronic equipment, it must be approved, but pilotage and dead reckoning are always approved.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Some question of that has been raised with some initially interesting but eventually devolving discussion on some boards.

After all, if dead reckoning is okay (so long as you don't exceed the tolerances) whay not a handheld GPS "solely" as an aid to (dead reckoning) situational awareness? Even the good old military take two VORS and split the difference (yes, I know it's more complicated than that) has been stopped in US airspace due to concerns about whether it complies with current rules about what it means to go direct.
 
msmspilot said:
I can't help you from the controller side, but from the pilot side, I can say that you're not the only one having that type problem.
Click to expand...

Yep. "Unable, how about a vector?" works every time.

I myself am unwilling to accept direct to an intersection unless I have an IFR-approved GPS or RNAV (DME/DME/IRU) system - where I operate, in SoCal, they like precision navigation (to the point of "you're a quarter mile south of the airway centerline"). YMMV.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Yep. "Unable, how about a vector?" works every time.

I myself am unwilling to accept direct to an intersection unless I have an IFR-approved GPS or RNAV (DME/DME/IRU) system - where I operate, in SoCal, they like precision navigation (to the point of "you're a quarter mile south of the airway centerline"). YMMV.
Click to expand...

Well, not every time. ;)

Also I was referring to the "I filed xyz, ...; the strip printed out abcde intersection, and the controller fussed at me because I couldn't go direct when I "filed" it that way." Had that happen more than once.
 
msmspilot said:
Well, not every time. ;)

Also I was referring to the "I filed xyz, ...; the strip printed out abcde intersection, and the controller fussed at me because I couldn't go direct when I "filed" it that way." Had that happen more than once.
Click to expand...

Ah...well...when they say "Unable vectors" I might just have to key up and say something like "cancel IFR". (It hasn't happened...not yet anyway... :) )

Also...there's something about flight data processing in there that comes to mind, but I don't know enough about it to tell you why your route got truncated. Makes me want to be an air traffic controller so I can find out.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Ah...well...when they say "Unable vectors" I might just have to key up and say something like "cancel IFR". (It hasn't happened...not yet anyway... :) )

Also...there's something about flight data processing in there that comes to mind, but I don't know enough about it to tell you why your route got truncated. Makes me want to be an air traffic controller so I can find out.
Click to expand...

There's one controller who gives me "direct abcde," I reply "unable direct, request heading xxx to join the airway," and he says "i do that every time, fly heading xxx, join Vyyy." It amuses me. I need to go visit the TRACON to meet him one day.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Yep. "Unable, how about a vector?" works every time.

Yea thats the issue is we ask for a vector and the controller gives us doodie about it


There have been days where we cancel IFR and procede VFR (which is fine with our company) because of this but on the 100vv 1/2mile vis days thats frowned apon.


As far as 135 and procedeing to the bridge it would be a opsec thing and Ours allows the formal means of navigation but since we dont have approved gps in the rare event we have one we cant use it nor handhelds.
Click to expand...
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Ah...well...when they say "Unable vectors" I might just have to key up and say something like "cancel IFR". (It hasn't happened...not yet anyway... :) )

Also...there's something about flight data processing in there that comes to mind, but I don't know enough about it to tell you why your route got truncated. Makes me want to be an air traffic controller so I can find out.
Click to expand...

In the center, if the computer automatically adds something into the route, the strip that prints on low altitude will have the route shaded in grey, and in URET (automated system that replaces strips) the route will be highlighted in blue. The controller would know it wasn't what the pilot filed. It is *supposed* to take aircraft equipment into consideration when inserting these routes. It just doesn't throw fixes/routes into a flight plan without letting us know as it could cause a great deal of confusion down the line if there are differences in what the pilot filed and what is in the computer.

I have no clue on how this appears in flight strips/plans at a TRACON.
 
To answer Barty - In the terminal world the flight plan is shown with the entire route filed or if it is long it is truncated, but if there is a PDR (preferred departure route) it is at the top on the strip with plus (+) signs on either side of it.
 
2010-11-08_02-20-54_114.jpg


What you see here is two terminal departure strips. One is similar to the OP's situation (JIA, ignore the equipment suffix for argument sake)
The other is a similar situation but manually modified.

The portion between the 2 "+" symbols on the JIA strip is a computer generated Preferred Departure Route (PDR). Just like the OP's situation it starts with a specific fix.

On the BAW one the route has been modified manually as denoted by the "1" under the callsign and the PDR has been suppressed by using the "*" after the departure airport.(see the FRC to PUT in the remarks, Full Route Clearance)

In both cases the controller should be easily able to identify that neither was what the pilot filed.
 
Thanks for posting the strip I've always wondered exactly how it looks
Most of the time it's a non issue it's just the one guy

Thanks again for all the replys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top