Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

(there are exceptions but in general, the answer is no).
Not true. It depends on the individual GPS. RTFM.

There are exceptions.....it depends......


ummm, we're saying the same thing, aren't we?
Agreed, RTFM always applies hence the indefinite statements.

Gerald

"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.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

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.


Whether you file /U, /A, or /G, ATC will expect you to be able to fly
whatever you file. If ATC must issue a reroute it should not require any
capability beyond what you indicated in your equipment suffix.



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.


What about those folks that file /A and airways and put "VFR GPS" in
remarks? What do they want?

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...

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


There is no fixed standard for that. You will likely only be violated if
your course deviation results in a loss of separation.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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.

Ah yes.. had originally considered TYQ then switch to Eagle Creek. This
was 5-6 weeks ago now.

That would be JAYBE.

Yup. That was the first one.

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

Yes, I did. Are you going to tell me I got what I asked for? I
understand that, now. But, I maintain that, well, treating that remark
just like "/G" by ATC is perhaps not the most logical way to treat it.
Now that I know how the system works for real, though, great!!

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

Ah, Ok. I was off by a bit there. I'm usually SE of MSN when given the
direct clearance so it is somehwat longer than that (but not 20 I guess).

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...

I realize that, but the question was how far out of the way do you have to
be.. I guess it's entirely clear of the ORD bravo, in that case.


No, you have to be entirely clear of Chicago approach control delegated
airspace. That's considerably larger than the Class B airspace.



I had no idea the controller misspoke as I took her at her word.


Perhaps you misheard.



Around in circles we go. :-) Though I'd filed "VFR GPS" in my remarks,
I'd done that only to use it to my benefit to be able to go direct an
airport when _I_ wanted to, and, thus, I wasn't worried about the
database. I did NOT realize or expect this to be basically treated as a
/G by ATC. I know better now. Anyway, again.. that was just part of the
reasons I had for just not bothering with IFR for that flight...



As I noted I'm not uncomfortable going direct a field I know is there with
the GPS.. that's the reason I was mentioning it in the remarks.



The remarks section is useful for conveying pertinent information to ATC.
You don't need it to convey pertinent information to yourself. When you
reach a point where you'd like to go direct to an airport, just ask ATC for
direct to that airport.

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...

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

Yes, I did. Are you going to tell me I got what I asked for? I
understand that, now. But, I maintain that, well, treating that remark
just like "/G" by ATC is perhaps not the most logical way to treat it.

What other logical way is there for ATC to treat it? What did you expect
ATC to conclude from that remark?

G. Sylvester wrote:

(there are exceptions but in general, the answer is no). Not true. It
depends on the individual GPS. RTFM.


There are exceptions.....it depends......


ummm, we're saying the same thing, aren't we?

There is no FAR that says the database must be current. The law is
whatever the manufacturer says it is in the manual. It's just the
opposite of what you said, most of the time an expired database is OK.
Especially for terminal and enroute ops. Only for approaches is it
pretty standard that the databse be current.

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
Yes, I did. Are you going to tell me I got what I asked for? I
understand that, now. But, I maintain that, well, treating that remark
just like "/G" by ATC is perhaps not the most logical way to treat it.

A man walks into a bar and says, "I'd like a glass of fruit juice, please".
The bartender smiles and starts to pour him a glass of juice.

Then the man says, "My wife doesn't like it when I drink whisky, but whisky
is what I really like, and, hey look, I even brought my own shotglass with
me (but my wife doesn't know, wink-wink, nudge-nudge)". The bartender
smiles, puts the juice away, and pours the man a shot of whisky.

Then the man says, "Why did you give me that whisky!? That's not what I
asked for".

The bartender smiles, and says, "Say intentions". The man says, "I'm going
to go drink in that bar on the other side of the street where they don't
have so many confusing rules I have to follow."

The bartender smiles and pours the shot of whisky on the man's shoes, at
which point the man becomes enlightened.

Didn't the man at some point make a post on an Internet forum whining
about the bartender's inability to read his mind??

Roy Smith wrote:

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

Yes, I did. Are you going to tell me I got what I asked for? I
understand that, now. But, I maintain that, well, treating that remark
just like "/G" by ATC is perhaps not the most logical way to treat it.


A man walks into a bar and says, "I'd like a glass of fruit juice, please".
The bartender smiles and starts to pour him a glass of juice.

Then the man says, "My wife doesn't like it when I drink whisky, but whisky
is what I really like, and, hey look, I even brought my own shotglass with
me (but my wife doesn't know, wink-wink, nudge-nudge)". The bartender
smiles, puts the juice away, and pours the man a shot of whisky.

Then the man says, "Why did you give me that whisky!? That's not what I
asked for".

The bartender smiles, and says, "Say intentions". The man says, "I'm going
to go drink in that bar on the other side of the street where they don't
have so many confusing rules I have to follow."

The bartender smiles and pours the shot of whisky on the man's shoes, at
which point the man becomes enlightened.