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it, and then head off in the wrong direction because your database is out
of date, they'll probably throw 91.103 at you.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

"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?

Ok. I was going from Milwaukee to Indianapolis: KMWC to KEYE (I think -
Indy Exec). I filed VORs starting with LJT to DPA (DuPage). DuPage is
on the western edge of the ORD bravo. I figured this was enough
out-of-the-way of the bravo to satisfy KORD approach. I was wrong, and
have since learned that the route I was given is pretty much a preferred
route going IFR south through that airspace.

That route involved vectors then several intersections, as I'd said.
The problem was compounded by the fact that I'm nearly certain that the
tower controller mispoke and told me that the first waypoint was D32 on
the R270 from BAE. 32 miles west of BAE?! Are you kidding me?! Turns
out it's the R207, I discovered later, which obviously made much more
sense. (I'm nearly certain that she mispoke, and I didn't mis-hear, as
207 was far closer to what I was expecting and where I was looking on
the chart initially.)

This is with me sitting in the runup area - amended clearance. My first
one was vectors then as filed, I believe. Sitting there in the runup
area, realizing my GPS DB was not current (nowhere close), AND being
under the incorrect assumption that they wanted to send me half-way to
Madison, I elected, as I said, to reject the clearance and go VFR -
weather was well above mins and I figured I'd get a popup going into
Indy (where weather had been a bit worse, cigs around 3000 if I recall)
if I needed it.

Other times I've been told to go direct involve uncontrolled fields with
no navaid, after I've already been vectored off-course. An example
would be going to Morey, C29, which is about 20 miles west-southwest of
Madison, KMSN. I file direct to the MSN VOR, which is on the field, but
am sometimes vectored around the airport (MSN is Class C and busy on
weekends), then instructed to go direct C29. No problem with the VFR
GPS, and obviously impossible without it. Of course, that doesn't
bother me as I'm usually fairly confident that Morey hasn't moved. :-)
I've noticed this also happens when I haven't even put "VFR GPS" in the
remarks.

Whatever. I'm learning how the system actually works (which is
obviously not quite what we are told in training) and going with it. I
know how to use my GPS (Garmin 295) inside-out now (did you know it can
make omelettes?) and am going to verify intersection locations on the
charts and keep the DB current enough that I should be quite unlikely to
have problems. And probably start getting my clearances, when there's
any doubt as to what I'll actually get, before engine start.

I would guess that this is probably close to what most GA pilots who fly
IFR w/out an IFR GPS are doing.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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:
Ok. I was going from Milwaukee to Indianapolis: KMWC to KEYE (I think -
Indy Exec). I filed VORs starting with LJT to DPA (DuPage). DuPage is
on the western edge of the ORD bravo. I figured this was enough
out-of-the-way of the bravo to satisfy KORD approach. I was wrong, and
have since learned that the route I was given is pretty much a preferred
route going IFR south through that airspace.

Unfortunately for us small-fry, IFR routes in busy airspace are often
driven by ATC needs and the traffic flow in and out of the major hubs more
than anything else. If you want to fly with the big boys, that's just
something you need to accept.

That route involved vectors then several intersections, as I'd said.
The problem was compounded by the fact that I'm nearly certain that the
tower controller mispoke and told me that the first waypoint was D32 on
the R270 from BAE. 32 miles west of BAE?! Are you kidding me?! Turns
out it's the R207, I discovered later, which obviously made much more
sense. (I'm nearly certain that she mispoke, and I didn't mis-hear, as
207 was far closer to what I was expecting and where I was looking on
the chart initially.)

If you get a clearance that doesn't make sense, ask for clarification. Did
the controller mis-speak, or did you mis-hear? No way to know at this
point. But, either way, the way it should have played out was:

"Confirm the first fix is BAE R270 D32?"

"Negative, it's the R207 D32. R207, not R270".

"OK, that makes more sense, thanks".

Did you read back your clearance with R270, and get "readback correct", or
did you never get that far?

This is with me sitting in the runup area - amended clearance. My first
one was vectors then as filed, I believe. Sitting there in the runup
area, realizing my GPS DB was not current (nowhere close)

I'm confused. Surely your database didn't go out of currency sometime
between when you did your pre-flight planning and the time you got to the
runnup area?

Other times I've been told to go direct involve uncontrolled fields with
no navaid, after I've already been vectored off-course.

If you can't do it, tell the guy, "Unable direct XYZ, negative RNAV".
He'll come back with something you can do, "OK, fly heading 120 to
intercept V456, then as previously cleared".

Whatever. I'm learning how the system actually works (which is
obviously not quite what we are told in training)

Ah, yes, the big enlightenment. The real-world IFR system isn't quite what
most people get trained for. Sometimes the differences are a real
eye-opener.

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
Whatever. I'm learning how the system actually works (which is
obviously not quite what we are told in training) and going with it. I
know how to use my GPS (Garmin 295) inside-out now (did you know it can
make omelettes?) and am going to verify intersection locations on the

Huh? The 295 can be used to file VFR GPS?

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...

Ok. I was going from Milwaukee to Indianapolis: KMWC to KEYE (I think -
Indy Exec).


EYE is Eagle Creek Airpark, Indianapolis Executive Airport is TYQ.



I filed VORs starting with LJT to DPA (DuPage). DuPage is on
the western edge of the ORD bravo. I figured this was enough
out-of-the-way of the bravo to satisfy KORD approach. I was wrong, and
have since learned that the route I was given is pretty much a preferred
route going IFR south through that airspace.


As a rule, Chicago approach doesn't do thruflights. You have to go around
them. Most singles prefer not to go around the east side due to the lake,
so if your destination is to the east you're in for a lengthy detour.

It's not enough to avoid the Class B airspace, you have to remain outside
the airspace delegated to Chicago approach and it is considerably larger
than the Class B and it is uncharted. A standard bypass routing is
RFD.V128.IKK. Were the intersections you were given on that airway?



That route involved vectors then several intersections, as I'd said. The
problem was compounded by the fact that I'm nearly certain that the tower
controller mispoke and told me that the first waypoint was D32 on the R270
from BAE. 32 miles west of BAE?! Are you kidding me?! Turns out it's
the R207, I discovered later, which obviously made much more sense. (I'm
nearly certain that she mispoke, and I didn't mis-hear, as 207 was far
closer to what I was expecting and where I was looking on the chart
initially.)


That would be JAYBE.



Other times I've been told to go direct involve uncontrolled fields with
no navaid, after I've already been vectored off-course. An example would
be going to Morey, C29, which is about 20 miles west-southwest of Madison,
KMSN. I file direct to the MSN VOR, which is on the field, but am
sometimes vectored around the airport (MSN is Class C and busy on
weekends), then instructed to go direct C29. No problem with the VFR GPS,
and obviously impossible without it. Of course, that doesn't bother me as
I'm usually fairly confident that Morey hasn't moved. :-) I've noticed
this also happens when I haven't even put "VFR GPS" in the remarks.


Had you put "VFR GPS" in the remarks for your trip to Indianapolis?

Morey is about 8 miles WSW of MSN, by the way.