I'm gonna have to give you a full route clearance...

[MochaHagotdi]

Caught this gem while listening to the ZLA 04/13/21 feed earlier this afternoon. VRD166 was climbing out on the LOOP7 departure out of KLAX. Center inquired whether VRD was direct TRM (Thermal VOR) or not. This in turn opened Pandora's box for a full (re)route clearance...

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/VRD166/history/20150729/1935Z/KLAX/KEWR

Original routing: LOOP7 DAG J100 LAS KD54U TXC OVR DSM EVOTE NELLS KEEHO J584 SLT FQM3

New Routing: HOLTZ9.TRM..PKE..DRK.J6.IRW..FSM..MEM.J42.BNA.J42.BKW.J42.GVE.PHLB03

[Marty Becker]

Looks like the "new" routing is not valid anymore, because the aircraft is currently over SE Minnesota right now. 

Marty

[VASAviation]

Random question... why the heck would you read out "MEM.J42.BNA.J42.BKW.J42.GVE" rather than "MEM.J42.GVE" ?

I've been asking that myself for years...

I guess is kinda due to sector limits or something...

[tyketto]

Really makes me wonder what flight strip Center was looking at as compared to what the cab and TRACON had, especially given that the new routing doesn't appear to have been followed. Sure sounds like somebody dropped the ball given Center's initial (and subsequent?) confusion.

The only thing I can think of for this was the metering for the weather delay that the NY area is having. KEWR and KJFK both have 2 hour 15 minute delays coming in and out.

Looking at the preferred IFR routes from the FAA (page 401), the preferred route for KLAX-KEWR is SID DAG J100 0BH J10 IOW J60 JOT J146 GIJ J554 CRL J584 SLT FQM–STAR

So giving them the reroute would have to pretty much be for weather, which they probably were rerouted again after DRK, which turns out to be the case.

BL.

Random question... why the heck would you read out "MEM.J42.BNA.J42.BKW.J42.GVE" rather than "MEM.J42.GVE" ?

good question. No real need for that type of read out on the clearance.

BL.

[VASAviation]

All of the interim waypoints along J42 are right near an ARTCC boundary

Exactly, BUT telling/reading the route for an aircraft is absolutely unnecessary.

It is okay for the system to read it and recognize it but if you're clearing an aircraft a re-route you can just read the short version

[joemonk64]

Exactly, BUT telling/reading the route for an aircraft is absolutely unnecessary.

Not True. J42 is one of three high altitude airways that use those same common VORs ... so you have to specify the path. Check the high altitude enroute charts.

[VASAviation]

If I set "MEM  J42 GVE" in any FMC/GPS of any modern aircraft, does it read it well and properly? I do think so...

The direction I'm flying on the airway is specified by my first VOR MEM and my last GVE. Why do I have to specify the path?

Every ATC along knows over and along what that airway is going and pilots do so as they have the enroute chart or the FMC drawn image.

I guess I don't get what you mean

[VASAviation]

I guess I don't get what you mean

Same here. There's no navigational reason to specify the interim VORs; "MEM J42 GVE" is just as accurate and unambiguous as "MEM.J42.BNA.J42.BKW.J42.GVE". The only reason a pilot might see the latter is if step climbs (or speed increases) were planned at one of the intrim fixes (e.g. "MEM.J42.BKW/N0426F340.J42.GVE").

Even then, that's only a flight plan route consideration. The pilot could still enter "MEM J42 GVE" when programming the FMC and then later add in the speed/altitude constraints to the expanded route.

Absolute and exactly as I understand this topic