High Altitude Waypoints

"Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net> wrote in message news:d5qdnWqKnvQNtoTVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@neonova.net. ..
> Greetings,
>
> If I file an IFR flight plan with the equipment suffix of /G, indicating
> GPS, can I use a high altitude waypoint on the flight plan even if I'm
> flying in the low altitude structure?
>
> For example, flying northwest from Las Vegas, filing from BTY VOR (Beatty)
> to DOBNE to BIH VOR (Bishop) takes me around the Saline MOA that is in the
> way of a direct flight from Beatty to Bishop.
>
> The issue is that DOBNE is a waypoint in the high altitude structure and I'm
> filing for 16,000' or maybe 18,000', in the low altitude structure.
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis
>

It should not be a problem.
I've used ROKNE, east of Wichita, in exactly that way, with no issues.

"Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:d5qdnWqKnvQNtoTVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@neonova.net. ..
>
> If I file an IFR flight plan with the equipment suffix of /G, indicating
> GPS, can I use a high altitude waypoint on the flight plan even if I'm
> flying in the low altitude structure?
>

Yes.

"Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:V7edna91FcI3pYTVnZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@neonova.net. ..
>
> Thanks, John, for the speedy reply! I figured it was probably okay, but
> wasn't sure the computer wouldn't reject it.
>

The computer will accept any fix-to-fix route as long as the fixes are in an
acceptable format. It doesn't care about altitude, it will accept altitudes
that are below the surface.

Dennis Johnson wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> If I file an IFR flight plan with the equipment suffix of /G, indicating
> GPS, can I use a high altitude waypoint on the flight plan even if I'm
> flying in the low altitude structure?
>
> For example, flying northwest from Las Vegas, filing from BTY VOR (Beatty)
> to DOBNE to BIH VOR (Bishop) takes me around the Saline MOA that is in the
> way of a direct flight from Beatty to Bishop.
>
> The issue is that DOBNE is a waypoint in the high altitude structure and I'm
> filing for 16,000' or maybe 18,000', in the low altitude structure.
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis
>
>
18,000 is in the high altitude structure provided the area altimeters
are all 29.92 or higher.

What gets tough with a routing like that is determining a legal
off-route altitude.

Where do you plan to go after BIH VOR?

"Sam Spade" <sam@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:0KjSj.69258$y05.19910@newsfe22.lga...
> Dennis Johnson wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> If I file an IFR flight plan with the equipment suffix of /G, indicating
>> GPS, can I use a high altitude waypoint on the flight plan even if I'm
>> flying in the low altitude structure?
>>
>> For example, flying northwest from Las Vegas, filing from BTY VOR (Beatty)
>> to DOBNE to BIH VOR (Bishop) takes me around the Saline MOA that is in the
>> way of a direct flight from Beatty to Bishop.
>>
>
> What gets tough with a routing like that is determining a legal
> off-route altitude.
>
> Where do you plan to go after BIH VOR?

I must have missed something, Sam.
What's tough about reading the grid MORAs from the charts?

John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Sam Spade" <sam@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:0KjSj.69258$y05.19910@newsfe22.lga...
>
>>Dennis Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>Greetings,
>>>
>>>If I file an IFR flight plan with the equipment suffix of /G, indicating
>>>GPS, can I use a high altitude waypoint on the flight plan even if I'm
>>>flying in the low altitude structure?
>>>
>>>For example, flying northwest from Las Vegas, filing from BTY VOR (Beatty)
>>>to DOBNE to BIH VOR (Bishop) takes me around the Saline MOA that is in the
>>>way of a direct flight from Beatty to Bishop.
>>>
>>
>>What gets tough with a routing like that is determining a legal
>>off-route altitude.
>>
>>Where do you plan to go after BIH VOR?
>
>
> I must have missed something, Sam.
> What's tough about reading the grid MORAs from the charts?
>
You mean ORACAs as per the AIM?

OROCA is an off-route altitude which provides obstruction clearance with
a 1,000 foot buffer in nonmountainous terrain areas and a 2,000 foot
buffer in designated mountainous areas within the U.S. This altitude may
not provide signal coverage from ground-based navigational aids, air
traffic control radar, or communications coverage.

They are not all that easy to apply on a route of any length and they
are sometimes needlessly high because they cover a relatively large area.

"Sam Spade" <sam@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:q2rSj.111760$Ft5.86744@newsfe15.lga...
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>>
>> I must have missed something, Sam.
>> What's tough about reading the grid MORAs from the charts?
>>
> You mean ORACAs as per the AIM?
>
> OROCA is an off-route altitude which provides obstruction clearance with
> a 1,000 foot buffer in nonmountainous terrain areas and a 2,000 foot
> buffer in designated mountainous areas within the U.S. This altitude may
> not provide signal coverage from ground-based navigational aids, air
> traffic control radar, or communications coverage.
>
> They are not all that easy to apply on a route of any length and they
> are sometimes needlessly high because they cover a relatively large area.

OK, maybe I'm showing my age by still calling them grid MORAs. :-[
Thanks, and I'll try to remember their current name after this.
But I've used them by whatever name for more than 25 years,
and I've never thought they were either "tough" or "needlessly high".
But then, you'll not find me flying through canyons, either.

John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Sam Spade" <sam@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:q2rSj.111760$Ft5.86744@newsfe15.lga...
>
>>John R. Copeland wrote:
>>
..
>
>
> OK, maybe I'm showing my age by still calling them grid MORAs. :-[
> Thanks, and I'll try to remember their current name after this.
> But I've used them by whatever name for more than 25 years,
> and I've never thought they were either "tough" or "needlessly high".
> But then, you'll not find me flying through canyons, either.
>

I doubt you have as much age to show as moi. ;-)