Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

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.

Nitpick, Steve. This is another example of a pilot thinking that ATC sees an
image of the airplane rather than a data block.

I'll be at the NATCA meeting in May...will you? I'm neither a controller nor
a NATCA member, but I go anyway.

Bob Gardner

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

"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.

Ok, that's a good point indeed - why bother with the remark if I don't
want direct clearances? My original intention was to allow me to go
direct to airports that I happen to know have not moved.. no danger
there. It was direct to intersections that I had no particular prior
knowledge of that caused me some concern. I had never intended to _ask_
to go direct to such.

I'll save you the trouble of pointing out that that's inconstent and
that ATC is never going to make such a distinction. I realize that..
now. Basically, what's occurred was me going through a bit of a
real-world learning phase and fully pondering the nuances of VFR GPS use
in IFR.

Your implication that I haven't fully expressed my thoughts on this
question in this thread is on the money. Anyway, the discussion moved
down a tangent - I hadn't really intended to complain about this -
though I guess I did, reading my post now - it threw me for a bit but I
decided how to deal with it.

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

Roy Smith wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

"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?

Nope - hearing 32 out on the R270 was all I needed to say "to heck with
this". It would have been foolish for me to accept the clearance given
the situation. As I said earlier, with the winds I was pushing my
fuel-reserve with my route, with my extra margin for the bit of
vectoring I knew I might get, and the new clearance would have
definitely mandated a fuel stop. I didn't want that.

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?

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...

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".

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.

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:
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.

from my very limited experience the first controller will
say "fly heading XXX and intercept V25..." Usually the next
controller all you have to say is "heading XXX" and can leave
off the intercept V25 as that will clue them in enough.

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.

it's amazing how you can really see personalities and/or moods over the
air.

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!

I didn't even know a C152 flies. ;-) j/k. The other way to do it
is just crack open a door. hehehe.

Another thing I've wondered about is how often the pilot is told when
they'll be filing paperwork.

I've heard that it takes number of things. 1, affect safety of flight.
2, not apologize and sound like you did everything right and they
are wrong. 3, they are in a bad mood. I'll tell you when it happens
to me although I don't exactly plan on it. ;-)

It seems the norm is the dreaded "call
this number on landing" but I know that they don't have to do that.

well the other day I heard a pilot ask the SQL Tower for the controllers
name. She got the initials. I guess it can work both ways.

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

agreed. They've help my butt more times than they've given me a hard
time.

And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading tolerance", anyway??
I should have stated the question as "course-deviation tolerance".

I've never heard of any but that doesn't mean much. I presume as
long as you are within the +/-4nm of the airway they don't care.
You violate their aircraft separation and then they might 'violate'
you though.

Maybe the best thing to do is don't mention the VFR GPS as it implies
that you are /G.

Gerald

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).

Not true. It depends on the individual GPS. RTFM.

Bob Gardner wrote:

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."

The only way ATC notices a 2 degree error is if where you are supposed
to be going happens to follow an airway.

Blanche wrote:

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?

Any GPS not certified for IFR is the same in the eyes of the FAA.

My take is direct gives you the same horizontal and vertical tolerances
that an airway does. Which I think, is 100' of altitude variation
(actually they don't usually see it, unless it is 150' or more), and 2
miles to the right or 2 miles to the left.

However it ATC sees you are veering off course, the controller can ask,
as a way of getting your attention to the deviation (even though it may
still be withing tolerances). He sees you are veering off course and
wants you to correct. But that doesn't mean you have busted your
clearance.

Take ATC statements for what they say. He wants you to verify that you
are direct.

Also, don't get in the habit of hitting the direct to button, you
should actually fly back to your course and get back on your original
direct track, not keep making new direct to tracks.

If you do a lot of IFR flying, get the Howie Keefe (www.aircharts.com),
text updates. You can use these to see if any of the waypoints have
changed if you update your GPS when the Keefe system begins (March I
think). This way you will know if your waypoints are up to date, even
though the database may not be.