"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...

Obviously airways start and terminate from an intersection or VOR. I
would have assumed you would have understood what I meant. But then
assume does have another defintion I guess.


I've learned it's best not to assume anything here.



If I have to fly to a VOR via a certain radial, to pick up an airway, no
big deal. Point I am trying to drive home is that ATC did recognize I was
slant Alpha.


Of course they did, it's right on the strip. But they also recognized you
had RNAV capability based of your filed route.



I'd think you were incorrect on this.


Why?



They sent me to a VOR.


They sent you direct to a VOR that was out of range. Doesn't that suggest
to you that they assumed you had RNAV capability? Were you originally
cleared as filed or via radar vectors? How could they clear you as filed
without assuming you had RNAV capability?

Is there another fix that would have provided sufficient avoidance of the
MOAs with less deviation than YRK VORTAC?



Doesn't the flight strip show what I filed?


Yes, it wouldn't be very useful if it didn't.



Since I don't have an IFR GPS (yet), maybe I worded it rather poorly, but
are there not other routes that GPS may offer then standard NAV routes?


An intersection is a point defined by any combination of courses, radials,
or bearings of two or more navigational aids. I believe you're thinking of
waypoints.



Please re-read what I wrote above. As I originally posted, the MOA's were
hot, and the re-route was due to the MOAs. I would have expected a
clearance to a VOR closer to where I was and then if needed run the
airways until I am cleared the VORs.


A re-read confirms you didn't mention the MOAs. If you knew the MOAs were
hot why did you file a route through them?



I just would have expected a clearance to a fix within a range that at
least I could have picked up on the nrst function of my GPS, not some 90
miles away.


Well, there's no reason to expect that.