Ok so I flight sim on a constant basis. I’m a sucker for flying real world routes and the like. A typical flight I do is MCO to RSW. On flight aware when I look up IFR routes the routing is FMYDT. I’ve looked and think that this is not a fix or something like that. I’ve been on the flight before in real life with this routing and noticed that the routes seemed as if it was Direct as there were no turns until the pilot was setting up for a landing on rwy 6 at RSW.
So my question is, what does FMYDT mean? is it another way to say Direct to?
That’s another one of those south Florida unusual routings. (same thing goes on for flights out of Naples (APF) and has been discussed somewhere on FlightAware before.
I checked fltplan.com, and it shows the most common filed route between the two airports is Direct. It also shows the recent “planned ATC route” as FMYDT. There was one entry for FMYDT-RINSE-v521-RSW.
My guess, as it was for the APF fixes too, is that it is a local controller abbreviation for routes that stay within a relatively local area. They have to put something other than the airport ID in the flight plan for the computer to accept it. (guess)
I realize that VORTACS have only 3 letters. I was thinking FMYDT was used by the local controllers to enter into the computer and meant FMY (Fort Myers) Direct. In order not con confuse it with the VORTAC RSW, they used FMY instead of RSW.
There would be no practical reason or purpose for filing direct to KFMY vs RSW no matter how one wants to code it into the computer.
If I file an airport as a waypoint, then it’s the airport identifier is put into the computer is as I file it. Airports have 4 letters (I.E. KJAN), VOR’s have 3 (JAN) and intersections have 5 letters.
Flight Aware will replicate exactly what is filed.
In the above case, should (what I cannot conceive since you would get a better view of the airport via the VOR) there be a reason to overfly KFMY.
Like CFIJames said, it’s probably a bogus entry into the system for local flight controllers to get around some computer limitation as the entry is not a valid fix by any stretch of the imagination in my two resources which would be DUAT and airnav.
EXACTLY! I think you hit the nail on the head! Alright! It’s a BOGUS entry for the use of controllers to have something to enter into the computer. As I said:“In order not con confuse it with the VORTAC RSW, they used FMY instead of RSW.” I’m just saying that instead of possibly getting the entry confused with RSW, they used FMY as the first part of the ident.
Gee! Can I say anything without you jumping on me?
Let me kindly remind you what you said which has incorrect information. I was trying to be nice, but this doesn’t seem to work too well with you.
Let me go this route. What is your rational for this opinion?
Did you even bother to look at the navigation maps?
Did you even read my response or look at a resource I provided (that has a VFR chart preview and resource link to a VFR map)?
One even better, how is one to get confused between the VOR RSW and the airport KFMY when the identifiers are not even remotely close.
AGAIN. 5.8 miles does not affect flight planning purposes that much. Even in my Sundowner, it’s a measily 2 minute difference.
So, there must be another reason other then airports and fixes that ATC decided to use a bogus entry into the FAA system.
There are many things not privy to pilots that are available to ATC, and this FMYDT is probably one of them. This would run parallel to MVA (for non pilots, MVA means Minimum Vectoring Altitude).
In simple words, it **most likely **has nothing to do with FMY as there is no navigational gain from filing direct to that airport (from a pilot’s perspective).
While I don’t know what FMYDT means and clearly stated this in my original response, **I do know it has nothing to do with an airport or VOR **as it is not based on a valid fix as you stated above.
If there is something I am saying wrong, please enlighten me with some resources I (and others) can evaluate.
Thank about it, Al. A flight is going direct from MCO to FMY. There’s not traffic. The controller wants to give the pilot direct to FMY. The computer won’t accept that so a code is made that shows the flight is direct from MCO to FMY.
Now, if the “waypoint” was RSWDT there could be a possibility that it is entered as RSW, which is not the intent of the controller.
By using FMYDT, if the “DT” portion is accidently left off then the computer would complain that FMY is not a legal entry for a waypoint.
Nice try… but you are now really shooting from the hip.
Just so we are on the same page, what I file is what is put on Flight Aware. Amendments to clearances do not show up in Flight Aware (and I have had a few amendments in my short flying career).
If said pilot asked for airways, and ATC sez hey, I can get you direct, the routing will remain his original file plan in Flight Aware and he would go direct to the airport.
That NA to my knowledge will not change to FMYDT unless Florida ATC does something different then the rest of the country to interact with Flight Aware.
Glad to be of help, Slick. Regardless of what the know it all says, I think it basically boils down to the FAA entering FMYDT into the flight plan when it is filed as direct. While I couldn’t find a specific FMYDT reference, I did find, looking on the FAA page, a reference to the same thing for the Chicago area (ORDDT). (Please don’t ask me to give you a reference - all of those FAA publications began to look the same after a while!)
