Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

"Roger" wrote in message
...

I once flew IFR to OSH around the South end of Lake Michigan.
As you well know they sent me what seemed like half way to Kentucky to
stay well clear of ORD's airspace, climb corrodors, and preferred
routes in and out.

Although, looking at a map shows the distance to OSH from Midland
(3BS) to be about the same whether you go around the North or South
end of the lake (possibly a tad shorter around to the South) it will
work out to be far longer going South if you are IFR.


Unless you plan a stop within Chicago approach control airspace. Then
you're no longer a thruflight, you're an arrival and a departure. But then
you may be routed over a bit more water than you'd like.

Exactly. Going to Midway the first time IFR I ended up over the lake
much farther out than I liked. Next time I went down to the same area I
put "no over-water routing please" in my remarks, which worked - I was
routed around to the west instead. A bit longer, but I'd prefer that.

My CFII told me this little story. A colleage of his (another CFII) was
doing practice approaches VFR with MKE approach. At one point he told
them he was several miles out over the lake and he'd like a turn. He
was told he'd have one shortly. Another few minutes and another few
miles and he squawks 7700. "What's your emergency?" "I'm over the lake
in a piston single." He got his turn.


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
...

I once flew IFR to OSH around the South end of Lake Michigan.
As you well know they sent me what seemed like half way to Kentucky to
stay well clear of ORD's airspace, climb corrodors, and preferred
routes in and out.

Although, looking at a map shows the distance to OSH from Midland
(3BS) to be about the same whether you go around the North or South
end of the lake (possibly a tad shorter around to the South) it will
work out to be far longer going South if you are IFR.



Unless you plan a stop within Chicago approach control airspace. Then
you're no longer a thruflight, you're an arrival and a departure. But then
you may be routed over a bit more water than you'd like.

Newps wrote in news:r66dnfOMiNj6zPTfRVn-
:

It might be. I am in the camp that knows that VFR GPS's, installed or
otherwise, are not legal for IFR for navigating on a direct course. You
are not legal asking for or accepting "cleared direct" when you are /A.
Nor is the controller legal in giving such a clearance.

Cleared direct is certainly legal without a GPS if you are asking for
clearance direct to an intersection and you are on one of the legs...

There was a discussion that I was involved in some time ago (maybe almost a
year ago) that defined how one could even navigate direct to an
intersection off-airway with 2 VORs (or, more complexibly by flipping 1
VOR). Admittedly, since I fly in a flight club that has all IFR-approved
GPS units, I never learned the technique. But there is no legal restriction
in requesting or accepting a clearance that you personally can't handle, so
long as you have the proper equipment to be able perform the navigation.

Is it a bad idea? Maybe. But is it illegal? I don't believe so.

Paul Folbrecht wrote in
:

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"??

Was it the same controller who gave you the clearance?

How far off course were you with respect to miles, not degrees?

Especially during controller changes and/or handoffs, controllers may
not always have clearly documented the last clearance they gave you. The
next controller confirms this either by asking you to verify, or giving
you the clearance again. I've had this happen to me numerous times.

Generally speaking, though, I have found that a "correction" will only
be made if you are off by more than a couple of miles and don't seem to
be correcting, or if your error threatens to cause separation issues
(although this is more common with altitude busts than heading busts).

I look at it as a good thing, not a bad one. One time when flying IFR
in IMC I managed to miss a waypoint on an airway. As I flew off the
"real" airway I was asked to verify I was on the airway. When I
confirmed they indicated that I looked like I was direct to the next
waypoint (I think it was RBV or SAX VOR) and not on the airway. When I
realized the error and fessed up, they cleared me direct to where I was
going anyway - presumably no one else was around, and it was only a few
degrees different. But had there been other traffic in the area, and had
they not corrected me (ie: RADAR down or what not), it could have led to
bad things...

Accidents happen, people are only human and do make mistakes. That's why
ATC is not annoyed to help you. They're there to help you. They will get
annoyed if they have to correct you frequently (READ: NY TRACON if it's
more than once, or if they just corrected someone else before you). But
everyone gets an occassional correction - I've even heard it happen to
Heavies!

wrote in
news
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:21:18 GMT, Judah wrote:

There was a discussion that I was involved in some time ago (maybe
almost a year ago) that defined how one could even navigate direct to
an intersection off-airway with 2 VORs (or, more complexibly by
flipping 1 VOR).


I don't believe this is possible.

The best you can do is narrow the course down to the choice of several
hedings, but not just one.





I'll have to hunt it down. To be honest, I didn't give it much thought,
because any time I fly IFR without an IFR approved GPS, I carry a handheld,
but file /A and DON'T indicate VFR GPS in the comments. I follow the
Airways like a good boy, and use the GPS just as a double-check on my VOR
tracking.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

Because it isn't just a NATCA meeting...


Odd, then, that that's what it's called.



LOL, is not.... :-P

Chip, ZTL

Dan Luke wrote:
"G. Sylvester" wrote:
Lastly, I have to admit I'm far from an expert.
That is well established.

at least I'm humble.

Now I think I understand what you guys are doing. For
an intersection defined by 2 VOR's within receiving range
of the VOR for your current position, you would tune-ident-twist
for each radial defining the intersection. fly to it and
have the needles center. that is your intersection. If
you have a TSO-C129 GPS, you can tell it to go to that
intersection and you are good to go. Nice and easy. If
you have a handheld, then you tell it to go but you still
must use the VOR's as your GPS database could be 12 years
old. Basically you are using the handheld to just help
you out to get to the point. Your VOR's are your primary
means of defining that that intersection though. That
is pretty logical and normal as if you didn't have a handheld.

Now if the intersection is 500 nm away and out of VOR reception,
then the handheld is your primary means and only means of navigation.
The FAA might very well say you are legal but reckless. You can
say you monitored VOR's along the way but I'd have a hard time
seeing the FAA not seeing you as reckless without an TSO'd GPS,
INS, Loran, etc. But I'm not the judge. Do as you see fit
and hopefully you never have to sit at the end of a table
with men in black suits and dark sunglasses.

BTW, I asked the DPE I'm using for my checkride about this. He said
he would have failed me if I used a non-TSO'd GPS for IFR operations.
He's not a court of law though.

Cheers,

Gerald Sylvester

G. Sylvester wrote:


Now if the intersection is 500 nm away and out of VOR reception,
then the handheld is your primary means and only means of navigation.
The FAA might very well say you are legal

No, they wouldn't say that.


but reckless.

Can't see how unless you somehow manage to wreck the plane because of
your handheld.



BTW, I asked the DPE I'm using for my checkride about this. He said
he would have failed me if I used a non-TSO'd GPS for IFR operations.
He's not a court of law though.

He is correct.

wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:21:18 GMT, Judah wrote:


There was a discussion that I was involved in some time ago (maybe almost a
year ago) that defined how one could even navigate direct to an
intersection off-airway with 2 VORs (or, more complexibly by flipping 1
VOR).



I don't believe this is possible.

The best you can do is narrow the course down to the choice of several
hedings, but not just one.

I'm not following how it's not possible to calculate the heading unambiguously.
Two VORs give you two lines-of-position. You are where the LOPs intersect. If
your location is known unambiguously, and the location of the target
intersection is known unambiguously, there is one and only one direct route.

Not that you'd do it this way, but just to demonstrate that it's possible in
principle, do the following mind experiment: On your chart on your lapboard,
draw the LOPs from the VORs and mark your position. Draw a line from your
position to the desired intersection. Use your protractor to determine the
course. Repeat as required.


Dave

"G. Sylvester" wrote in message
.. .

at least I'm humble.

Now I think I understand what you guys are doing. For
an intersection defined by 2 VOR's within receiving range
of the VOR for your current position, you would tune-ident-twist
for each radial defining the intersection. fly to it and
have the needles center. that is your intersection. If
you have a TSO-C129 GPS, you can tell it to go to that
intersection and you are good to go. Nice and easy. If
you have a handheld, then you tell it to go but you still
must use the VOR's as your GPS database could be 12 years
old. Basically you are using the handheld to just help
you out to get to the point. Your VOR's are your primary
means of defining that that intersection though. That
is pretty logical and normal as if you didn't have a handheld.

Now if the intersection is 500 nm away and out of VOR reception,
then the handheld is your primary means and only means of navigation.
The FAA might very well say you are legal but reckless. You can
say you monitored VOR's along the way but I'd have a hard time
seeing the FAA not seeing you as reckless without an TSO'd GPS,
INS, Loran, etc. But I'm not the judge. Do as you see fit
and hopefully you never have to sit at the end of a table
with men in black suits and dark sunglasses.


Being reckless isn't enough, at least not according to the regulation. FAR
91.13(a) states; "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or
reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." Whose
life or property is endangered by the use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute
operations?