Pending IR flight test planning questions

[dougj]

Dear IR pilots: Now that Navcanada has removed (some) Victor airways how do I plan a long distance flight? Just pick RNAV waypoints ("intersections"?) along the way in the general direction of my destination and use AMAs as my minimum altitude? Just file direct and see what happens?
Plus what do you guys attach to your yoke clips? I first made a copy of the current plate, marked it up with temp corrections, then had to toss that after test cancelled due to weather...OR can I tear out the plate from the previous issue ( as long as they have the same "effective date") ? I assume you don't rip out the current plates because you'd need a secretary in the right seat to keep you organized...
Plus how does one avoid extended flight over lakes in singles ? See Windsor Ont, CYQG from the east , preferred STAR (Ghoma 2 arrival- notamed not auth till Jan 2015) takes you right over the middle of Lake St Clair. Did Navcanada forget about the pilot that drowned after being vectored over that lake in the mid 90's?
Thanks, Naive IR wannabee

[CpnCrunch]

Has Nav Canada actually removed any airways in the latest charts? The AIC is a little unclear if they are actually being removed in this update.

[FenderManDan]

Dear IR pilots: Now that Navcanada has removed (some) Victor airways how do I plan a long distance flight? Just pick RNAV waypoints ("intersections"?) .....

I am just guessing that the examiners will have to give you some trip where you can use the preferred routes. I make photocopy from the paper CAP and attach that.

As far as STAR over the lake is concerned well that is PDM. If you have solid IMC in the single at night and no auto pilot while freezing precip, I guess you don't attempt the STAR.

Has Nav Canada actually removed any airways in the latest charts? The AIC is a little unclear if they are actually being removed in this update.

Around Toronto yes, V routes are gone. LO6 looks pretty nude as of the latest update.

[ahramin]

File what you would file in real life:

Start with the CFS, look for preferred routing,
Look at flight following sites and see what others have been getting,
Call ACC IFR Planning,
File direct from the last thing that makes sense after departure to the first thing that makes sense on approach.

As for over water, I have to admit I find it a strange question. How far over water can a STAR take you? If you are flying IFR to an airport by the water, I think you're going to have to accept some over water exposure during departure and arrival. Wear a life jacket (inflatable).

[Big Pistons Forever]

As for over water, I have to admit I find it a strange question. How far over water can a STAR take you? If you are flying IFR to an airport by the water, I think you're going to have to accept some over water exposure during departure and arrival. Wear a life jacket (inflatable).

The planning criteria for a STAR, or SID do not take into account the issue of over water exposure for single engine aircraft. However you do not have to accept a STAR and may refuse the clearance is it is going to take you somewhere that you think is unsafe. If you are going to refuse the STAR you need to be able to in a concise and coherent way, tell ATC what you will accept. Eg "Unable STAR due to flight legs over water. Request I remain within 3 miles of the shore line at, or above, 4000 feet". It would be highly advisable that you give ATC as much warning as possible and be prepared for extra track miles, delay vectors, or a hold.

[ahramin]

be prepared for extra track miles, delay vectors, or a hold.

Exactly, so now the risk exposure is increased due to the longer flight by trying to limit the exposure to a different risk. Think I'd just fly the STAR.

[photofly]

TC AIM RAC 7.5: "No pilot is required to accept a SID clearance."

TC AIM RAC 9.2: " Pilots
are not required to accept a STAR clearance, and, if they are
unable to follow it, they should request alternate instructions"

You can also include "NO SIDS/STARS" on your flight plan.

[Big Pistons Forever]

be prepared for extra track miles, delay vectors, or a hold.

Exactly, so now the risk exposure is increased due to the longer flight by trying to limit the exposure to a different risk. Think I'd just fly the STAR.

Sorry I don't agree as not ever minute of a flight has the same risk. Extra flight time holding over a VOR does not have the same risk as flying over water beyond gliding distance of land, especially at this time of year. To say that the extra flight time you may experience by declining the STAR, nullifies the benefit of not going over water just does not compute for me.

[ahramin]

You guys make some good points, however I'm not convinced that worrying about an engine failure while on a STAR over water computes as one of the larger risks of flying around IFR in a light piston single.

Then again, I haven't seen the STAR in question. Plus maybe I shouldn't comment seeing as I'm the guy who swallowed a valve in the middle of the only 10 minute over water segment of a 4.5 hour flight.

In view of the arguments, I guess it would be worth a try to not accept the STAR due over water routing and ask ATC for direct some fix instead. What's the worse that could happen? If someone tries it let us know how it goes.

[Big Pistons Forever]

You guys make some good points, however I'm not convinced that worrying about an engine failure while on a STAR over water computes as one of the larger risks of flying around IFR in a light piston single.

Then again, I haven't seen the STAR in question. Plus maybe I shouldn't comment seeing as I'm the guy who swallowed a valve in the middle of the only 10 minute over water segment of a 4.5 hour flight.

In view of the arguments, I guess it would be worth a try to not accept the STAR due over water routing and ask ATC for direct some fix instead. What's the worse that could happen? If someone tries it let us know how it goes.

You also may have the option to demand a higher than published altitude for the over water segments. The RNAV approach to CYCD starts at IKMUV which is well away from shore and only requires a crossing altitude of 2000 feet. Many pilots of singles specify a higher altitude across this fix or state that they want vectors to final along the shoreline. AFAIK ATC has always been willing to accommodate.

[photofly]

In view of the arguments, I guess it would be worth a try to not accept the STAR due over water routing and ask ATC for direct some fix instead. What's the worse that could happen? If someone tries it let us know how it goes.

I've turned down a STAR as part of a route clearance (why in the name of all that's good would I want to fly the ILIXU5 arrival into CYTZ down the middle of lake Ontario passing DUSUB at 14,000 feet, in a C182?). They just gave me another route.

[Rookie50]

I have done the CYQG star a couple of times, asked to be held higher and west of the southbound star track by a couple of miles, that mitigated it for me. Was good weather though.

[cj75]

From page C109 of the Nov 13 2014 CFS.
Single engine aircraft wishing to stay close to land, file RMK/NO OVER WATER.
Never actually tried it. No idea if it actually works.