Heh!
I was once cleared to a lat/lon point 300 miles away from my St. Louis =
departure!

Turned out to be a VORTAC location that I'd actually filed to.
Somebody was foolin' with me.
I told clearance delivery I'd read back the clearance, soon as I found =
that lat/lon point.
---JRC---

"Robert Henry" wrote in message =
news:9s7ab.18898$pe.10355@lakeread06...
Actually, I think they have the mindset, but don't understand the =
ergonomic
factors that can be encountered trying to use it.
=20
For example, I've twice been cleared to random 5-letter fixes which do =
not
appear on enroute charts that turn out to be IF's for ILS approaches. =
These
clearances were issued en route, 60-100 miles away from the airport, =
well
before an expected approach had been specified. Actually, both =
approaches
ended up being visuals. I don't know every 5 character permutation of
"wip-pee" intersection and which one applies - running through the =
guesses
takes some serious knob time. Yet there's always a certain irritation
(noted by the poster as well) in the response to the request for
clarification, the spelling in my example.
=20
Maybe a screenshot of a Garmin 430 with intersections and data fields
represented on the 100nm scale will help to convey the problem.
=20
--
=20
Bob
PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI
=20
"JerryK" wrote in message
news:_Y6ab.487139$YN5.330405@sccrnsc01...
Sounds like you did the correct thing. It is going to ATC awhile to =
adopt
a
GPS mindset.
=20