A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Being asked to "verify direct XXX"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10  
Old April 20th 05, 01:47 AM
Patrick Dirks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
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).


Controllers are not pilots (some are, but it's not a requirement and most
are not), and don't understand the nuances of things like GPS database
currency. Putting "VFR GPS" in the remarks, while having no official legal
significance, says to the controller, "I want to be given direct
clearances". You ask for them, he'll give then to you. Then it's up to
you to decide if you can safely execute them. If you can't, say, "unable",
and he'll come up with a different clearance.


FWIW it has been my understanding that ATC cannot legally assign you
"direct" to some fix you cannot navigate to using the equipment suffix
you've filed with; if you file /U or /A you can't be expected to
navigate directly to a fix not defined by VORs.

Of course it is YOUR responsibility to figure out what you can navigate
to, and to tell ATC you're "unable" if ATC tries to clear you somewhere
that would require use of a GPS; a VFR hand-held GPS is irrelevant as
far as "official" navigation is concerned.

That said, I've also understood that adding "VFR GPS" in the remarks
might encourage ATC to give assign you a HEADING somewhere, maybe with
"direct when able" or something, on the assumption that with the aid of
your VFR GPS you'll be able to head somewhere with surprising accuracy,
which helps everyone.

You could also ask for "Radar vectors" to somewhere, perhaps as in
"request heading 242 degrees, radar vectors FUBAR"; with "VFR GPS" in
the remarks ATC might go along, assuming you'll end up making a nice
beeline for FUBAR. Officially you're on Radar Vectors and ATC retains
responsibility for you; in practice you're no added trouble because you
can head somewhere better than without your "VFR GPS" on board.

That's the reason I've always understood for "VFR GPS ON BOARD" and why
I occasionally specify it filing IFR.

Cheers,
-Patrick.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Clearance: Direct to airport with /U Judah Instrument Flight Rules 8 February 27th 04 07:02 PM
Direct To a waypoint in flightplan on Garmin 430 Andrew Gideon Instrument Flight Rules 21 February 18th 04 02:31 AM
"Direct when able" Mitchell Gossman Instrument Flight Rules 18 October 21st 03 02:19 AM
Filing direct John Harper Instrument Flight Rules 10 October 9th 03 11:23 AM
Don Brown and lat-long Bob Gardner Instrument Flight Rules 30 September 29th 03 04:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.