ATC that works with and deals in reality

[alaskaflyer]

Now as we all (should) know, just because ATC is willing to issue such a clearance doesn't necessarily make it legal in the eyes of the FAA. Given that, what specifically makes a long vector, direct when able to a VOR any more legal than just plain direct to the same waypoint?

The equipment you are using to arrive there?

 

[gismo]

The equipment you are using to arrive there?

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I'm looking for something in the regulations or at least something published by the FAA as guidance.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I'm looking for something in the regulations or at least something published by the FAA as guidance.

I was just noting that it seems to me this is the distinction the FAA is trying to make. Without RNAV or true /G capability a direct clearance without a vector seems to be the verboten action. I know Ron Levy has posted the specific language over at the red board, perhaps he will enlighten us again.

 

[gismo]

I was just noting that it seems to me this is the distinction the FAA is trying to make. Without RNAV or true /G capability a direct clearance without a vector seems to be the verboten action. I know Ron Levy has posted the specific language over at the red board, perhaps he will enlighten us again.

OK. I agree with that, I'm wondering why the vector makes it legal, when the waypoint is very distant.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I know it's the "accepted wisdom" that such a clearance (vector to a distant point, direct when able) is legal and/or "more legal" than just plain direct, but I have occasionally wondered what the basis for this thinking is.

91.205(d)(2) makes the "plain direct" clearly illegal from the start. The "vector to a distant point, direct when able..." is two operations, a vector + navigation in compliance with 91.205(d)(2). Clearly the second half is legal. Unless someone can point to a limitation on vector distances in the ATC handbook, etc., which, BTW, does not exist, then there is no prohibtion on vector/direct when able.

Certainly if your next waypoint is a VOR you should become "able" when you get close enough, but it's also obvious to me that such a clearance from HQM (western WA) to IJX (Jacksonville FL) would leave a pilot with lost comm with the potential to never get within the service volume of IJX due to changes in the wind. Granted this is a rather unlikely scenario, but if this isn't legal, where's the demarcation between a legal example and an illegal one?

What is your basis for stating that vectors/direct when able between Hoquim and Jacksonville would be illegal?

Also, I've generally assumed that having filed a legal route, you could revert to that if you lost comm on a long vector but AFaIK this notion isn't supported by any FARs either.

That notion is specifically prohibited under 91.185(c)(1)(ii).

Now as we all (should) know, just because ATC is willing to issue such a clearance doesn't necessarily make it legal in the eyes of the FAA. Given that, what specifically makes a long vector, direct when able to a VOR any more legal than just plain direct to the same waypoint?

One is clearly prohibited by FAR; the other complies with all applicable regulations and FAA guidance, and it is not otherwise prohibited in any way.

 

[gismo]

91.205(d)(2) makes the "plain direct" clearly illegal from the start. The "vector to a distant point, direct when able..." is two operations, a vector + navigation in compliance with 91.205(d)(2). Clearly the second half is legal. Unless someone can point to a limitation on vector distances in the ATC handbook, etc., which, BTW, does not exist, then there is no prohibtion on vector/direct when able.

I do believe you are correct about the lack of a distance limit, but I suspect that this is simply the result of technology getting ahead of the regulations. When the concept of a radar vector came into being, I'm pretty sure no one anticipated that someone would ever request or be given a vector to a point a thousand or more miles distant.

What is your basis for stating that vectors/direct when able between Hoquim and Jacksonville would be illegal?

Absolutely nothing. I've even gone throught 7110.65 and the only limitation on vector distance I could find is that it has to be "reasonable" whatever that means.

EXPECT TO RESUME (Route, DP, STAR, FMSP, etc.).
NOTE−
You must ensure that the pilot is made aware if he/she is
expected to resume a previously issued route procedure.
e. Provide radar navigational guidance until the
aircraft is:
1. Established within the airspace to be
protected for the nonradar route to be flown, or
2. On a heading that will, within a reasonable
distance, intercept the nonradar route to be flown, and
3. Informed of its position unless the aircraft is
RNAV, FMS, or DME equipped and being vectored
toward a VORTAC/TACAN or waypoint and within
the service volume of the NAVAID.
PHRASEOLOGY−
(Position with respect to course/fix along route),
RESUME OWN NAVIGATION,
or
FLY HEADING (degrees). WHEN ABLE, PROCEED
DIRECT (name of fix),
or
RESUME (name/numberFMSP/DP/transition/STAR/
procedure).
REFERENCE−
FAAO 7110.65, Chapter 4, Section 1, NAVAID Use Limitations.

One is clearly prohibited by FAR; the other complies with all applicable regulations and FAA guidance, and it is not otherwise prohibited in any way.

This all appears to be true, albeit nonsensical. And JOOC, what do you believe to be the correct course of action should a pilot lose comm while on a vector to a very distant navaid?

 

[Dr. Bill]

In these days of redundancy, having extra radio's and gps's (even when non-certified), I don't think I've EVER heard of that situation occuring! Has anyone?

What're the odds.... infinitesimally(sp?) small?

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I do believe you are correct about the lack of a distance limit, but I suspect that this is simply the result of technology getting ahead of the regulations. When the concept of a radar vector came into being, I'm pretty sure no one anticipated that someone would ever request or be given a vector to a point a thousand or more miles distant.

Well, that gets somewhat philosophical. Do you (or I) subscribe to the "get it on the ground at the first appropriate airport, ATC will thank you later" theory, or do you (or I) subscribe to the "by the book, adhere to 91.185" theory? If the later, you navigate direct from the point of failure to the vector's destination fix, flying the heading until the radios start providing assistance when in range. If the former, you do whatever you want because you will create a new plan immediately and the vector was defnitely old plan.

 

[gismo]

Well, that gets somewhat philosophical. Do you (or I) subscribe to the "get it on the ground at the first appropriate airport, ATC will thank you later" theory, or do you (or I) subscribe to the "by the book, adhere to 91.185" theory? If the later, you navigate direct from the point of failure to the vector's destination fix, flying the heading until the radios start providing assistance when in range. If the former, you do whatever you want because you will create a new plan immediately and the vector was defnitely old plan.

Yeah, I should have constrained the "solution" to be along the lines of the "by the book" one as this is specifically about what the regs require. My concern is when the vector is a long one how do you navigate to get in range of the VOR (using the GPS is cheating)? If you were far enough away you might never get within reception range, especially if you were relatively low. Also, if this (vector to a distant fix with "direct when able) is legal to accept as a clearance (yes, we've pretty well established that it is technically legal) what's the point of requiring that the filed route be flyable without RNAV unless it's supposed to be a fallback if com fails while on the vector? There is a mention of going direct to the next fix you can navigate to that the vector was leading you to but it seems this was intended to work when that fix was nearby.

 

[Ghery]

In these days of redundancy, having extra radio's and gps's (even when non-certified), I don't think I've EVER heard of that situation occuring! Has anyone?

What're the odds.... infinitesimally(sp?) small?

Alternator CB pops and you can't reset it. Not going to keep all the electronics up and running for long with an airplane battery. You're out of range of a VOR and you can't keep a radio and transponder running long enough to get to the "when able" point. What will you do now?

Ever had that CB pop? I have. And once I had fun getting it to stay reset. Dumped some load to accomplish that. Fortunately, I was was VFR and not really all that far from home. It it wouldn't have stayed in I would have dumped all electrical loads until I was about 15 miles out and then brought up a radio to call the tower (Class D). No flaps landing in a 182 on a 5500 foot runway wouldn't exactly have been difficult.

So, what are the odds? Significantly better than 0 in my own experience. But, then, I'm an EMC engineer and Edsel Murphy is my patron saint.

 

[Dr. Bill]

Ghery, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant for those of us using handhelds... They're full of batteries! No circuit breakers! (Ignoring the potential of dead batteries at critical times....)

My guess on the odds of all that "redundancy" going offline and it causing an accident was based on anecdotally never having heard of such in an NTSB report.

Problems as you describe are what I'd think was almost common! ESPECIALLY to an EMC engineer!

 

[Ghery]

Ghery, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant for those of us using handhelds... They're full of batteries! No circuit breakers! (Ignoring the potential of dead batteries at critical times....)

My guess on the odds of all that "redundancy" going offline and it causing an accident was based on anecdotally never having heard of such in an NTSB report.

Problems as you describe are what I'd think was almost common! ESPECIALLY to an EMC engineer!

Oh, I have a handheld in my flight bag. Along with a spare battery pack. And spare batteries. Redundancy are us! It's just that with my luck all those batteries, which checked out fine the day before the flight, would be dead when called upon. Edsel Murphy at his finest.

Given the mountains we have around here, I'm not about to go flogging off inside a cloud without a good solid nav signal telling me where I am. And it needs to be on a device that is appropriately certified. Not really a problem for me as: a) I'm still working on my IR, so I won't be solo at this point, and; b) the 182 I fly for IR training isn't GPS equipped, so it's VOR, ADF or no go.

 

[Dr. Bill]

Yeah, me too. I don't go if the VOR (my equipment limit) doesn't have the legal ability to do the trip.

But, that being said, this thread started on the notion that I really appreciated ATC realizing that I did most of my flying based on what I see on the handheld GPS's - and that that was a "cool" thing. Even if the FAA doesn't recognize it as such; in their outdated not-keeping-up-with-technology-minds.