Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

I'm a new IFR pilot, having gotten my ticket end of January.

One thing I've quickly picked up on is that ATC pretty much expects
everybody to be able to navigate direct. If you tell them you've got a
VFR GPS (in your remarks), they'll happily give you direct clearances
and instructions while airborne. I've learned to deal with that (by
really learning how to use my GPS), though I really still wonder about
the whole thing and marvel at the fact that they'll expect me to
navigate under IFR with this thing without a current database (I don't
keep the DB current and there's certainly no reason at all they should
expect that I do). (I am planning to do somewhat regular DB updates
from here on out, but it's not going to be every month.)

Anyway, on to my question. A couple times now, when I've been
navigating direct, either to a fix or airport identifiable by VORs or
one that isn't (such as an uncontrolled field with no navaid), I've been
asked to "verify direct XXX" when I'm off course by a quite small amount
- no more than 10 degrees. Or, perhaps, I've gotten off course a bit
and have a larger heading correction (20-25 degrees) in to get back on
track, momentarily. I've never had a controller sound annoyed, but it
does concern me a bit that they see fit to more or less ask "Are you
sure you know where you're going"??

I've vowed to put a stop to this, and I have realized that I should
probably pay even closer attention to my heading. I am meticulous about
holding alt but, obviously, heading is important too. Flying
single-pilot IFR with no autopilot, with turbulence, it can be a
challenge in those moments where the workload is high for a bit..

My two-part question is 1) Should I be concerned at all by being asked
such a question by ATC? And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading
tolerance", anyway?? Meaning, what sort of heading deviance is large
enough that you can be violated for it? Does such a figure even exist?
I expected this to be something fairly simple to find in the regs and
it was not.

TIA.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL-IA
~'79 C152
~MWC

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:29:32 GMT, Paul Folbrecht wrote:

Hi Paul,

I'm a new IFR pilot, having gotten my ticket end of January.

One thing I've quickly picked up on is that ATC pretty much expects
everybody to be able to navigate direct. If you tell them you've got a
VFR GPS (in your remarks), they'll happily give you direct clearances
and instructions while airborne. I've learned to deal with that (by
really learning how to use my GPS), though I really still wonder about
the whole thing and marvel at the fact that they'll expect me to
navigate under IFR with this thing without a current database (I don't
keep the DB current and there's certainly no reason at all they should
expect that I do). (I am planning to do somewhat regular DB updates
from here on out, but it's not going to be every month.)

I asked this question in the rec.aviation.student newsgroup. Check out
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ca6b1e08d0f7fe
for the responses to the exact same question I asked.

For my trip experiences, check out
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4500b275ab3fad

Hope this helps.

Allen

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
I really still wonder about the whole thing and marvel at the fact that
they'll expect me to navigate under IFR with this thing without a
current database (I don't keep the DB current and there's certainly no
reason at all they should expect that I do).

Controllers are not pilots (some are, but it's not a requirement and most
are not), and don't understand the nuances of things like GPS database
currency. Putting "VFR GPS" in the remarks, while having no official legal
significance, says to the controller, "I want to be given direct
clearances". You ask for them, he'll give then to you. Then it's up to
you to decide if you can safely execute them. If you can't, say, "unable",
and he'll come up with a different clearance.

(I am planning to do somewhat regular DB updates
from here on out, but it's not going to be every month.)

OK, that's up to you. There's no legal requirement to ever update the
database on a VFR GPS. But, keep in mind the following:

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is
the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

91.103 Preflight action.
Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar
with all available information concerning that flight

Those are pretty simple rules. If the guy says "direct FUBAR", you accept
it, and then head off in the wrong direction because your database is out
of date, they'll probably throw 91.103 at you.

I've vowed to put a stop to this, and I have realized that I should
probably pay even closer attention to my heading. I am meticulous about
holding alt but, obviously, heading is important too. Flying
single-pilot IFR with no autopilot, with turbulence, it can be a
challenge in those moments where the workload is high for a bit..

Holding altitude and heading are the two core fundamental skills of IFR
flying.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Controllers are not pilots (some are, but it's not a requirement and most
are not), and don't understand the nuances of things like GPS database
currency. Putting "VFR GPS" in the remarks, while having no official
legal
significance, says to the controller, "I want to be given direct
clearances". You ask for them, he'll give then to you. Then it's up to
you to decide if you can safely execute them. If you can't, say,
"unable",
and he'll come up with a different clearance.


Why ask for something you can't safely execute?

Controllers are not pilots (some are, but it's not a requirement and most
are not), and don't understand the nuances of things like GPS database
currency. Putting "VFR GPS" in the remarks, while having no official legal
significance, says to the controller, "I want to be given direct
clearances". You ask for them, he'll give then to you. Then it's up to
you to decide if you can safely execute them. If you can't, say, "unable",
and he'll come up with a different clearance.

That is exactly what I did the first time I got such a clearance. I was
told (this was being relayed by the class D airport's ground controller)
that I "should" be able to handle that clearance with "a GPS". (Note -
not "VFR GPS"; this had me wondering if ATC is even making any
distinction between IFR/non-IFR GPS!.)

Flustered, I canceled IFR and went VFR. A related factor was that that
routing was taking me excessively off-course, enough that I would have
then had to include a fuel stop. I knew I could get there faster VFR,
under the O'Hare bravo, and I did.

Holding altitude and heading are the two core fundamental skills of IFR
flying.

Yes, yes, yes, thank you. Ok, I had that coming.

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...

That is exactly what I did the first time I got such a clearance. I was
told (this was being relayed by the class D airport's ground controller)
that I "should" be able to handle that clearance with "a GPS". (Note -
not "VFR GPS"; this had me wondering if ATC is even making any distinction
between IFR/non-IFR GPS!.)


From an ATC perspective in enroute use there is no distinction.



Flustered, I canceled IFR and went VFR. A related factor was that that
routing was taking me excessively off-course, enough that I would have
then had to include a fuel stop.

A direct route took you excessively off course?

Direct to intersections (that I certainly hadn't filed for), not direct
to my dest.

A direct route took you excessively off course?

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...

Direct to intersections (that I certainly hadn't filed for), not direct to
my dest.


What had you filed?

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
this had me wondering if ATC is even making any
distinction between IFR/non-IFR GPS!.)

The short answer is "probably not". Like I said, controllers are not
pilots, and I suspect most of them have no idea about the regulatory issues
surrounding GPS certifications (nor should they).

There is one official way you communicate to ATC what navigational
capabilities your aircraft has, that that's the equipment suffix on your
type code. File /U, and they'll give you clearances you can execute with
VOR receivers. File /A, and they'll expect you to be able to identify DME
fixes. File /G, and they'll expect you to be able to go direct to any
en-route fix and fly GPS approaches.

On the other hand, if you file /U and put "VFR GPS on board", you're
leaving it to them to guess what you want, since "VFR GPS on board" has no
official meaning. The most common guess seems to be "treat me as if I had
filed /G", so they do. It turns out that this is indeed what most people
want, so it works out and everybody's happy. You seem to be wanting
something different, but I'm not sure what it is.

Ok, that's a good point indeed - why bother with the remark if I don't
want direct clearances? My original intention was to allow me to go
direct to airports that I happen to know have not moved.. no danger
there. It was direct to intersections that I had no particular prior
knowledge of that caused me some concern. I had never intended to _ask_
to go direct to such.

I'll save you the trouble of pointing out that that's inconstent and
that ATC is never going to make such a distinction. I realize that..
now. Basically, what's occurred was me going through a bit of a
real-world learning phase and fully pondering the nuances of VFR GPS use
in IFR.

Your implication that I haven't fully expressed my thoughts on this
question in this thread is on the money. Anyway, the discussion moved
down a tangent - I hadn't really intended to complain about this -
though I guess I did, reading my post now - it threw me for a bit but I
decided how to deal with it.

I realized nobody's had an answer to my original question - how far
off-course can you be before being officially violated?

Roy Smith wrote:

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

this had me wondering if ATC is even making any
distinction between IFR/non-IFR GPS!.)


The short answer is "probably not". Like I said, controllers are not
pilots, and I suspect most of them have no idea about the regulatory issues
surrounding GPS certifications (nor should they).

There is one official way you communicate to ATC what navigational
capabilities your aircraft has, that that's the equipment suffix on your
type code. File /U, and they'll give you clearances you can execute with
VOR receivers. File /A, and they'll expect you to be able to identify DME
fixes. File /G, and they'll expect you to be able to go direct to any
en-route fix and fly GPS approaches.

On the other hand, if you file /U and put "VFR GPS on board", you're
leaving it to them to guess what you want, since "VFR GPS on board" has no
official meaning. The most common guess seems to be "treat me as if I had
filed /G", so they do. It turns out that this is indeed what most people
want, so it works out and everybody's happy. You seem to be wanting
something different, but I'm not sure what it is.