• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

A Point-to-Point through the FARs

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I have beat my head against the wall for 10 years and can't understand the terror look in my fellow IFEs' eyes when I bring up TACAN point to point.
When I mentioned this concept, I was told the FARs do not allow for it and was read the verbiage. I couldn't argue the point intelligently based off what was read to me, and I'm not doubting that it is illegal, per the FARs, since it's pretty well spelled out. I just had to chuckle that the one and only way a large majority of Naval Aviation moves around in the IFR system is by means of a non-legal procedure (if we operated under the FARs). Sounded about right.
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
When I mentioned this concept, I was told the FARs do not allow for it and was read the verbiage. I couldn't argue the point intelligently based off what was read to me, and I'm not doubting that it is illegal, per the FARs, since it's pretty well spelled out. I just had to chuckle that the one and only way a large majority of Naval Aviation moves around in the IFR system is by means of a non-legal procedure (if we operated under the FARs). Sounded about right.
That’s horse shit. Nothing in the FARs against point to point. If there was, a whole bunch of military flight plans would he rejected automatically by the ATC system.

But just because it’s legal and you can file it, it doesn’t mean the ATC gods will let you fly it through any busy airspace. It would definitely f’ up their traffic flow trying to bust through off airways.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
When I mentioned this concept, I was told the FARs do not allow for it and was read the verbiage. I couldn't argue the point intelligently based off what was read to me, and I'm not doubting that it is illegal, per the FARs, since it's pretty well spelled out. I just had to chuckle that the one and only way a large majority of Naval Aviation moves around in the IFR system is by means of a non-legal procedure (if we operated under the FARs). Sounded about right.
I remember a switch on the TH-57 that had TACAN / TACAN RNAV / TACAN RNAV APR / VOR / VOR RNAV / VOR RNAV APR whereby you could input any radial / dme and go directly to it. I used it all the time doing BI's and early stage RI's around the TACAN (can't remember the name anymore - Jim?) in the Western Operating Area.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
That’s horse shit. Nothing in the FARs against point to point. If there was, a whole bunch of military flight plans would he rejected automatically by the ATC system.
I'm trying to find the reference, but finding the actual SIAPs are kicking my but because U.S. Code is annoying to search. That said, sometimes it's easier to cooperate to graduate. I'll keep digging...

I remember a switch on the TH-57 that had TACAN / TACAN RNAV / TACAN RNAV APR / VOR / VOR RNAV / VOR RNAV APR whereby you could input any radial / dme and go directly to it. I used it all the time doing BI's and early stage RI's around the TACAN (can't remember the name anymore - Jim?) in the Western Operating Area.
That's RNAV. The only way to do a PTP if all you had was a CDI and no RMI if only utilizing VOR/DME.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
I'm A) Too lazy to look it up B) Finishing off a growler of beer C) Watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail D) All of the above. The gist of it is you can't "track" using TACAN point to point, ie don't have capability to determine cross track error, unless you have a TACAN RNAV system.

The Army "can't" shoot this approach without first flying over the TACAN. If you ask for it, approach switches you to Mayport Radar, who tells you to report PAWNE. Years ago one of our pilots tried to fly it. They were smart enough to ask for vectors to PAWNE, but were unable to determine what direction to turn when they didn't arrive exactly at the fix (inside PWNE). They flew the holding pattern for the missed as if it were a PT. When radar asked them WTF, they said they were unable to fly direct to PAWNE. Radar's response was, "Well why did you ask for the approach?"
21292
Camelot! It's only a model.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
The gist of it is you can't "track" using TACAN point to point, ie don't have capability to determine cross track error, unless you have a TACAN RNAV system.
This is it. I couldn't find the actual quoted reg today that is preported to say this though. And then I moved on to make my dinner.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
This is it. I couldn't find the actual quoted reg today that is preported to say this though. And then I moved on to make my dinner.
How was the cross track error of your dinner? Plenty of cross track error on my end as I drank 3x wild turkey and cokes while making and eating dinner.
 

HAL Pilot

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
You can fly point to point, you just have to have the navigation equipment to support it.

Back in my T-2 days that was a RMI and a pencil....

When I was flying GA aircraft many many moons ago, we have a RNAV box that worked off of VOR and DME. Input the radial/DME of each point and it flew you between them using the CDI.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
You can fly point to point, you just have to have the navigation equipment to support it.

Back in my T-2 days that was a RMI and a pencil....

When I was flying GA aircraft many many moons ago, we have a RNAV box that worked off of VOR and DME. Input the radial/DME of each point and it flew you between them using the CDI.
That's where the contention is. RNAV is easy because it routes the computed course to a CDI. The argument is that a RMI needle doesn't provide cross track error to correct off of. I'd argue it can if you know what you're doing, but it wasn't something worth getting into at the time. However, when doing a PTP, the argument is that there's not a measured way to show course deviation while on the PTP leg, only the relatively accuracy of your pencil (or finger, which is how I always did it).

I'm going to see if I can find the IFR training .ppts today while at work and see if I can find the reference.

How was the cross track error of your dinner?
Minimal. Still three more days until I can induce cross-track error manually.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
If a RMI doesn’t provide any type of cross track error, how did we fly NBD approaches using them?
See above. Specifically:

I'd argue it can if you know what you're doing...
I agree with you. I just wish I could find the blurbage that was quoted, but finding the actual procedures "referenced" in Part 97 is eluding me.
 

scoolbubba

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Are you saying that if ATC gives an army helo a named point and they don't have RNAV, they can't go direct to the point? They have to go to the VORTAC and then track a radial outbound?
 

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
What a bunch of lawyers. In my experience, (and in my humble opinion), If you are in a radar environment - even with /U equipment code, you can go direct provided you can navigate. Even if that navigation is an RMI and a pencil.... if I misinterpreted the issue at hand please correct me.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
Are you saying that if ATC gives an army helo a named point and they don't have RNAV, they can't go direct to the point? They have to go to the VORTAC and then track a radial outbound?
That is what many Army IFEs will argue. But a radar vector is sorta OK, you just can't file for it.
 
Top