Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

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it, and then head off in the wrong direction because your database is out
of date, they'll probably throw 91.103 at you.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.