Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

"G. Sylvester" wrote in message
m...

they'll happily give you direct JFK to SFO. It's up to you to
do it.

Direct to SFO from JFK? Unlikely.

keep the DB current and there's certainly no reason at all they should
expect that I do).


no one except the PIC checks to make sure a plane's panel-mounted
database is current. ATC sure doesn't.

No kidding. My point was that, being that it's a _VFR_ GPS and that I
did _not_ file /G, I am under no regulatory requirement at all to keep
it current.


What you are saying is the equivalent of a /G airplane with out
of date databases. You are NOT legal to fly IFR with out of
date databases (there are exceptions but in general, the answer
is no).

Yes, there are exceptions for enroute ops, but that's another matter.

Not to be Mr. Police Officer or mean about it.....you said you are
newly minted IFR pilot when did you
take your written test? Did you study the Gleim. there are only
about 10 questions on GPS including a couple on the exact
thing you are asking about. I took mine not too long ago (my
checkride is coming up)

I took it it November and got a 98%. I am aware of the regs governing
IFR GPS use. No offense, but you missed my point.

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

A direct route took you excessively off course?

direct XXX, contact Socal on 134.65." When you contact
the next controller you should say "Airbus 12345, 2000, direct XXX."
Just like if they give you a heading and are handed off, you should
tell them your newly assigned heading. Don't assume anything. A

I haven't been doing that. That right there could (and probably does)
explain 2 of the 3 cases I can recall of being asked this question.

The last one, the one where I know I was a bit off course, was the
aforementioned occurance where we lost vacuum just moments later..
though actually, honestly, I don't really think that was the culprit
(though I normally do fly by the DG and VOR head and not the GPS ground
track).

This was my first time left seat in this particular airplane as well,
and I was studying an approach plate (no excuse, I know).

And, as I noted, not on this or any other time did I detect annoyance
from the controller.. in fact she (Chicago center) was very polite and
chipper.

I'm sure (well, 99% sure) I have nothing to worry about.

just trim out the plane perfectly including rudder trim so your
TC is perfectly level. It's just like your elevator trim. Get
them perfect and the plane will stay straight.

Rudder trim? You mean the little tab on the back of the rudder? :-) I
fly a '79 C-152, and, no, it does not fly completely hands-off level.
Few of them do!

concerned, no. But of course you'll wonder. Just like when I
flew into LAS in an Archer. I made a nice radio call "Cherokee XXXXX,
6000, information bravo." They came back and asked if I had information
bravo. This happened on 2 controllers no less. I figure they're used
to dealing with 'real' airplanes that I can only dream of flying.

Another thing I've wondered about is how often the pilot is told when
they'll be filing paperwork. It seems the norm is the dreaded "call
this number on landing" but I know that they don't have to do that. If
a controller was really peeved at you, he might take perverse pleasure
in making sure you didn't know what was coming.

Before somebody replies, I know that controllers are not out to violate
pilots and are almost all good guys & gals.

And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading tolerance", anyway??

I should have stated the question as "course-deviation tolerance".

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...

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


What had you filed?

ATC can't see your heading, just your ground track. They would have no way
of knowing that you are off-course by a "couple of degrees."

Bob Gardner

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...
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

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...

ATC can't see your heading, just your ground track. They would have no way
of knowing that you are off-course by a "couple of degrees."


Sure they do. If the observed track is other than the cleared route the
aircraft is off course.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:07:35 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
wrote:

Oh, I agree entirely. I should have mentioned that was only once, and I
also might have mentioned that we had a total vacuum failure within 5
minutes of that and the DG may already have been spinning down (we were
in VMC with me wearing foggles).

I got quite good at holding heading very accurately during my training.
I just have to learn to not let distractions interfere with that,
even momentarily.

As you pointed out earlier. Solo IFR in IMC without an AP is one of
the most demanding tasks in flying. It helps to have a non-pilot
friend in the right seat (to hand you maps or lunch!).

Man, even a single-axis AP would be nice!

I have a wing-leveler in my Cherokee 180. Although wing levelers
aren't the greatest, they do keep the plane upright and generally
pointed in the same direction. I am glad to have it, but of course
would like a 2-axis coupled AP.

-Nathan

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:
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.