ATC that works with and deals in reality

[Dr. Bill]

This a.m. on my way to work.

Me: Gray approach, Cherokee 5230W off Taylor, open IFR
ATC: ...(the usual radar contact, squawk, etc.)... Do you have GPS? Will you be direct?

Me: No, and yes, please.
ATC: Certainly. You guys are all flying by the handhelds, anyway.
Me: That's affirmative.
ATC: Cleared direct PWG (destination airport)....

Great flight. 1/2 IMC, 1/2 VMC.

Imagine how efficient the entire National Airspace System would be if EVERYONE worked like this. Can you say "Freeflight"?

Of course, I choose to turn a blind eye to the possibility the accident rate could go up; since I'm an eternal optimist, and there exists no 'future data', I believe it won't.

 

[JohnR]

Hey, if your plane is legally equipped for IFR, so what if you use a handheld GPS for situational awareness?

I kind of don't like the "you guys" thing. True or not, it's pretty presumptuous. I would have fired back, "Yeah, we all use handhelds, and you guys all wear dresses."

 

[Dr. Bill]

Hehehe... THAT's funny!

 

[alaskaflyer]

Here we go again...3...2...1...

 

[Dr. Bill]

Here we go again...3...2...1...

What?

Did I say something wrong?

 

[KennyFlys]

What?

Did I say something wrong?

Nawww... Richard just gets too much sun.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What?

Did I say something wrong?

Say? No. Do? Maybe. What route did you file? What equipment suffix?

 

[alaskaflyer]

....and what clearance did you accept?

I liked the post. But I think we will get into the whole "go direct without a true /G?" debate again.

Which is nothing if not entertaining so what the heck.

 

[Dr. Bill]

Ah. I see. My bad.

I just thought it was one of those wonderful mixtures of 'the wonder of flight' and 'the wonder of technology' that geeky people like us enjoy. Just sharing the love...

Yeah - it has been hashed a lot, hasn't it.

I'm /U. It was like the provided vector went without saying, an ethereal moment between controller and pilot, if you will. Kinda neat; still legal; but some would say unsafe for the what-if-went-nordo-in-IMC argument. I know, I know.

Similiar to when asked what approach I want to an airport that only has "ADF required" or GPS approaches (for which I am not equipped), I always respond, "expecting the visual", and am thusly cleared. Same scenario.

Some day I'll have a big boys' airplane and equipment.

 

[Dr. Bill]

Say? No. Do? Maybe. What route did you file? What equipment suffix?

Filed direct, expecting vectors.

I also file direct, knowing that whenever I'm in complicated airspace, they give me the routes THEY want. I've found no utility in trying to predict route assignations. Even when I look up the commonly used routes, it has never held. So I'm always 'ready to copy'!

 

[alaskaflyer]

Filed direct, expecting vectors.

It has been opined, more than once, that there is no such thing when /U or /A. What say you?

*protects head with hands and runs away giggling*

 

[Dr. Bill]

I say: "My this is some WONDERFUL banana pudding; if you'll excuse me, I must go get some more!"

 

[Dr. Bill]

It has been opined, more than once, that there is no such thing when /U or /A. What say you?

Really, I guess I say it's a lot like Radiation Poisoning. You can't see it, feel it, or touch it, but it and it's long term effects definitely exist! AND it has a half-life that will seem to last forever!

"I'm embracing the reality!" (or something like that) - Steve Buscemmi(sp?) in Armageddon, as he straddles the nuclear bomb.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Yeaboy!

Here's a theory...filing doesn't actually violate anything. Flying it is OK, since you have gotten vectors. The difficulty might be in accepting...

 

[Dr. Bill]

Comprendo.

Thanks.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Filed direct, expecting vectors.

I also file direct, knowing that whenever I'm in complicated airspace, they give me the routes THEY want. I've found no utility in trying to predict route assignations. Even when I look up the commonly used routes, it has never held. So I'm always 'ready to copy'!

Hmmm... So when they say "cleared as filed..." There's your problem. And now there's a flight plan with your name, and a tape with your voice, showing you doing something illegal.

Suggest you file a plan that's legal to fly /U (ie airways/VORs), and then put "handheld GPS aboard, request vectors direct" in the remarks. Then you're technically legal at least.

 

[bbchien]

Something AMAZING happened to me today. I went into PWK IFR, and outbound was VFR. I can't hardly belive it, I was handed off to 120.55! And then, to 133.5! I was appropriately terse but when he handed me off to Chi Center I had to say "thank you!". This was the FIRST TIME in FOUR YEARS that I have gotten FF from C90. There were TIS hits EVERYPLACE.

Unbeereevable!

 

[Dr. Bill]

Unbeereevable!

That's gonna be my quote of the day! Thanks, Bruce!

Kent: You're right. Thanks for the suggestion on a great and legal way to handle it. I think I've done it every way (including this one) imaginable. Was never completely convinced which way was the most/best technically legal. Appreciate the advice!

 

[gprellwitz]

Something AMAZING happened to me today. I went into PWK IFR, and outbound was VFR. I can't hardly belive it, I was handed off to 120.55! And then, to 133.5! I was appropriately terse but when he handed me off to Chi Center I had to say "thank you!". This was the FIRST TIME in FOUR YEARS that I have gotten FF from C90. There were TIS hits EVERYPLACE.

Unbeereevable!

You want unbelievable, a friend of mine took off from 1C5 Friday in the King Air filed to Lunken. When he radioed to pick up his IFR clearance, the controller responded "unable". My friend reiterated that he was IFR, and the controller repeated "unable."

The other unbelievable part was that I happened to be going into Lunken at the same time after a stop in Rockford to pick up my LifeLine Pilots patient, and wound up shooting the approach into Lunken right after him, so we hooked up for lunch. Even better, he treated!

During lunch, he called Chicago Approach and asked for the supervisor. He said that 95% of the time, calling in the air like that would be just fine, but that the controller must have been overworked. What he should have done is called on the land line first to tell them that he would be taking off soon so they could have the strip prepared for the controller.

My friend was wondering what would have happened had he been filed as LifeGuard, as he frequently is.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Here's another unbelievable.

Filed IFR from RIC to FDK yesterday. Clearance took me all the way around the ADIZ. Took off right into into IMC. Once airborne, the controller amended my clearance STRAIGHT THROUGH the ADIZ just to the east of IAD. Had it only been CAVU, would have been a great sightseeing trip for the wife. As it was the viz down was clear enough in spots to see the traffic backed up for miles on I-95. Formerly a reluctant flyer, the wife is now sold on GA for good.

The route was nearly GPS direct. Never before has that happened to me in the DC area.

Of course the route down took me across the Bay, down to PAX past Dick Cheney's place, and then west. The Looong way.
Here in the DC area, you file what you wan tnad get what you get. Sometimes it's a gift.

 

[mikea]

You want unbelievable, a friend of mine took off from 1C5 Friday in the King Air filed to Lunken. When he radioed to pick up his IFR clearance, the controller responded "unable". My friend reiterated that he was IFR, and the controller repeated "unable."

The other unbelievable part was that I happened to be going into Lunken at the same time after a stop in Rockford to pick up my LifeLine Pilots patient, and wound up shooting the approach into Lunken right after him, so we hooked up for lunch. Even better, he treated!

During lunch, he called Chicago Approach and asked for the supervisor. He said that 95% of the time, calling in the air like that would be just fine, but that the controller must have been overworked. What he should have done is called on the land line first to tell them that he would be taking off soon so they could have the strip prepared for the controller.

My friend was wondering what would have happened had he been filed as LifeGuard, as he frequently is.

C'Mon. I'm sure that happens to United flights and the guv out of Midway every once in a while ,too.

What did the supervisor say was the understandable basis for deciding which IFR is "extra (optional?) work" that can wait with an unable? Does the term they use begin with a "f" and end with a "b"?

 

[SCCutler]

C'Mon. I'm sure that happens to United flights and the guv out of Midway every once in a while ,too.

What did the supervisor say was the understandable basis for deciding which IFR is "extra (optional?) work" that can wait with an unable? Does the term they use begin with a "f" and end with a "b"?

...which reminds me: what, 'zactly, does the term "FLIB" mean? Or do I not want to know?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

"........ing little itinerant (fatherless child)"

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

If the controller says cleared direct 'wxyz' (or as described above, 'as filed') and I am /A etc, I just say "just for clarification, as I am slant alpha, N1234 cleared via radar vectors heading XY0 direct wxyz". (I provide the heading) I then make it clear to each subsequent controller when I check in, "altitude, heading and fix". It seems to help them (and fulfills the minor technicality of the potential legal issue). I think its a very workable system that should not be hamstrung by unfounded concerns. This is not a slam on anyone who sees it otherwise, just my experience and opinion about it which may be of no more value than the next person's.

 

[gismo]

Hmmm... So when they say "cleared as filed..." There's your problem. And now there's a flight plan with your name, and a tape with your voice, showing you doing something illegal.

Suggest you file a plan that's legal to fly /U (ie airways/VORs), and then put "handheld GPS aboard, request vectors direct" in the remarks. Then you're technically legal at least.

AFaIK, ATC won't see your remarks. IMO the correct method is to file /U and request "direct dest, heading nnn". That leaves your legal filed plan as a backup should something go wrong. Better yet, ask for vectors direct to a navaid you can work with using something other than GPS and "suggest" the heading from your GPS.

 

[Dr. Bill]

If the controller says cleared direct 'wxyz' (or as described above, 'as filed') and I am /A etc, I just say "just for clarification, as I am slant alpha, N1234 cleared via radar vectors heading XY0 direct wxyz". (I provide the heading) I then make it clear to each subsequent controller when I check in, "altitude, heading and fix". It seems to help them (and fulfills the minor technicality of the potential legal issue). I think its a very workable system that should not be hamstrung by unfounded concerns. This is not a slam on anyone who sees it otherwise, just my experience and opinion about it which may be of no more value than the next person's.

Now see, I just needed to hear from all ya'll smarter and more experienced guys how best to work the system...

But I don't want to come off as that guy who's always looking for a way to skirt the law; quite the contrary.

I am, however, a great admirer of efficient use of a system that I think is anachronistically ignoring the obvious.

Thankyou, Dave!

 

[Dr. Bill]

AFaIK, ATC won't see your remarks. IMO the correct method is to file /U and request "direct dest, heading nnn". That leaves your legal filed plan as a backup should something go wrong. Better yet, ask for vectors dir"suggest" the heading from your GPS.

Lance, I believe you are right on the remarks notes not being seen. It only leaves that it's 'off airway navigation' as a technical glitch for the regs - but that's what I suppose people argue about all the time. I've done it as you imply most often, as a matter of fact. But I really like Dave's memory sentence. And, it still makes best use of my laziness at just writing/filing "direct" in the route box... and can keep me 'technically legal' on the radio tape.

More to 'hmmmm' about....

 

[KennyFlys]

I am, however, a great admirer of efficient use of a system that I think is anachronistically ignoring the obvious.

Gosh, doctors and big words... go together like mustard and mayonnaise!

Can't ya just say they don't have their ducks in a row?

 

[Dr. Bill]

Hmmmm... Nah... The more I think about it, I guess I do need to put in the VOR's and airways in the box for route on the flight plan. (Since I am /U.)

Still like Dave's sentence with the clearing controller.

Hey Kenny! But I LIKE mustard and mayonnaise on my burger..!

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Lance, I believe you are right on the remarks notes not being seen.

As an FYI, only centers (ARTCCs) will see your filed remarks. The flight progress strips printed at terminal facilities (towers and TRACONs) don't print those remarks.

 

[gismo]

As an FYI, only centers (ARTCCs) will see your filed remarks. The flight progress strips printed at terminal facilities (towers and TRACONs) don't print those remarks.

Thanks Jason, I've never been clear on that.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Thanks Jason, I've never been clear on that.

Anytime. The terminal facilities are likely able to retrieve the remarks via a keyboard entry, but they're not clearly visible like in the centers.

In fact if you file with remarks, a column in your aircraft's line on URET (the computer system that replaced the majority of flight progress strips in the centers) will be marked a certain color for center controllers to see. Most en-route controllers hate remarks because you have to acknowledge the remarks on URET or the software will keep nagging you to.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

C'Mon. I'm sure that happens to United flights and the guv out of Midway every once in a while ,too.

What did the supervisor say was the understandable basis for deciding which IFR is "extra (optional?) work" that can wait with an unable? Does the term they use begin with a "f" and end with a "b"?

Mike,

United is not going to call in the air, as they have to be IFR from the beginning. They're going to get their clearance via Clearance Delivery at ORD (actually, I think they get it by computer there now).

It is NOT required of any controller to give you your IFR clearance on demand in the air. You either call on the ground (CD/ground @ towered fields, RCO/GCO/telephone at untowered fields), or you'd better be able to maintain VFR until you find a controller who's not too busy to read your clearance.

This is just one of those PIC responsibility items. If you can't maintain VFR, you'd best get your clearance on the ground.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20041103X01748&ntsbno=LAX05FA015&akey=1

 

[wsuffa]

It is NOT required of any controller to give you your IFR clearance on demand in the air.

I was on the ground at Kerrville one day picking up my clearance back to SSF. Solid IMC. There was another plane on the ramp that called and requested a clearance - it was denied, controller said he was too busy to be offering clearances for practice approaches.... really a good thing he hadn't taken off, because pattern altitude was above the ceiling.

 

[ejensen]

As an FYI, only centers (ARTCCs) will see your filed remarks. The flight progress strips printed at terminal facilities (towers and TRACONs) don't print those remarks.

I don't pretend to know the procedures but back in 99 for my IR chekride I put 'Instrument checkride' in the remarks. When I canceled with Denver approach they asked me if I passed. Had to tell them I didn't know yet.

 

[Dr. Bill]

And now there's a flight plan with your name, and a tape with your voice, showing you doing something illegal.

Ahem... This is why whenever I talk on the radio, I always do it in falsetto that sounds like Marvin the Martian doing PeeWee Herman...

 

[Ed Guthrie]

The realities of this topic:

1. Accepting a clearance to navigate (own nav) direct to any where to which you can not navigate via installed, IFR approved equipment is illegal (violation of 91.205(d)(2).

2. Yes, as the controller in the OP noted, many pilots use a handheld to violate #1. IMO, one day the FAA will decide enough is enough of this illegal practice and the FAA will crush a whole slew of unsuspecting pilots. Caveat aviator.

3. A vector is not own nav.

4. #3 is absolutely true, but a vector to somewhere to which you can not legally navigate (i.e. in accordance with #1 above) is an invitation to bust 91.185(c)(1)(ii) when a COM failure hits. Again, caveat aviator.

5. If the controller clears you direct, there are but two answers: "Bugsmasher 123, cleared direct..." or "Bugsmasher 123, negative". Anything else is mumbo jumbo that won't last three seconds in the subsequent enforcement action. IOW, after the controller clears you direcy, your saying, "Just to be clear, this is a vector, blah, blah, blah..." is useless, self-serving garbage wasting airwave bandwidth unless the controller replies, "Okay, in that case fly heading XXX, vectors direct ZZZ...", and in that case you may wish to re-read #4 above--this time more carefully.

Y'all be careful out there--personally I don't care to be the example certificate action, YMMV. If I'm flying a /A or /U it is much easier to pick a VOR more or less in line with direct destination and ask for vectors to the VOR, direct when able.

It is also much safer for my certificates' longevity.

 

[Dr. Bill]

Oooh, Ed! Good data! Nice treatise on the well supported facts, here. I appreciate it.

If I'm understanding you correctly, as long as it's direct to (or from) a VOR, and you're within signal range (and have it ID'd), then direct navigation, even off airway, is legal?

I ask because there is a VOR within 5 miles of my home drome, and this could be most convenient - as you can see I have an affinity for this direct navigation stuff (and its attendant efficiency...).

Thanks for the input,

 

[Ed Guthrie]

If I'm understanding you correctly, as long as it's direct to (or from) a VOR, and you're within signal range (and have it ID'd), then direct navigation, even off airway, is legal? I ask because there is a VOR within 5 miles of my home drome, and this could be most convenient

Direct, own nav, to a VOR, is legal, off airway or on. The FAA's "Instrument Flying Handbook" talks about this technique as being the grandfather of direct navigation. Direct via vectors to a VOR, direct when able (meaning within the service volume) is legal from anywhere you can negotiate the clearance. In this later case the clearance is a vector and it becomes own nav only when you can legally navigate own nav.

If it were my certificate that could be yanked, then yes, I'd prefer direct to the VOR versus direct to the airport. It's a fine point, true, admittedly, the odds of COM dying and leaving you unable to comply with 91.185(c)(1)(ii) is very, very small at any given moment, but it isn't a place I wish to tread if the legal answer (i.e. your solution of a VOR 5 miles from home) is so readily available.

In the past I've been cleared vectors direct Smoketown, direct when able..." from Florida. That was legal as can been even though at that time I couldn't "when able" until within 199 nm (the Mooney is /I via VOR/DME RNAV). FWIW, Craig, FL is 637 nm distant; it would be nearly 3 hours before I would no longer be on the controller's vector.

- as you can see I have an affinity for this direct navigation stuff (and its attendant efficiency...).

Thanks for the input,

No problem. Folks are taking a needless risk. I have yet to meet the controller who offered me direct somewhere who wouldn't take the subtle hint of: "Unable direct, but if you can give me a vector of one-five-three degrees, direct when able, that should work out nicely..." and then immediately reply, "Fly heading one-five-three, direct when able". Yes, I found the suggested heading from my handheld GPS, but the difference is that "..cleared direct..." is an illegal clearance while, "...fly heading XYZ, direct when able..." is not, even if the cleared vector heading was arrived at after consulting my VFR GPS.

 

[gismo]

In the past I've been cleared vectors direct Smoketown, direct when able..." from Florida. That was legal as can been even though at that time I couldn't "when able" until within 199 nm (the Mooney is /I via VOR/DME RNAV). FWIW, Craig, FL is 637 nm distant; it would be nearly 3 hours before I would no longer be on the controller's vector.

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. 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?

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.

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?