Filing /U for IFR

david0tey

david0tey

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
545
Location
Virginia
Display Name
Display name:
Fox-Three
I recently got access to a /U equipped (Transponder, no GPS) 172 and would like to use my newly acquired instrument rating. Are there many people out there flying IFR without GPS these days? Can I legally accept a direct to clearance using an Ipad if it is offered to me?

I had someone tell me that filing IFR without a GPS is frowned upon these days because it is an inconvenience in the system? Is this true?
 
I file with a /U plane occasionally. You can not legally accept a direct to clearance even if you have your iPad. Remember your iPad is not a legal form of navigation. It is only an aid for situational awareness. Most people have GPS in their planes so it's natural that ATC will try to give you direct to a fix. Whoever told you that it is an inconvenience is completely wrong.
 
How could it be an inconvenience on the system that was designed for not GPS?

Nope, not legal to accept a direct to clearance without legal RNAV equipment. Since most are capable, ATC oftentimes doesn't even look at an aircraft's filed equipment suffix, so be prepared to receive a direct-to and remember to decline it.
 
File all day without a GPS, plenty of folks do, no big thing.


DO NOT file /G if your GPS is in the forum of an ipad.
 
No stats but I think there are probably a decent number of a/c out there still flying non-gps. After all, there are all those black lines all over the LE charts still :) Either that or I must thank them for keeping it all going just for me!

No you cannot, but there is an easy way around that. (Long and heated debates here in the past 5+ years but it is still working for me without a hitch.)

The times I have been in the system without gps, atc did not make me feel like an inconvenience. I cannot read their thoughts however. Many times I was given direct to a gps waypoint or an out of range vor/tac and offered an alternative without a problem.
 
You cannot file /G, but you can ask for radar vectors direct then use the iPad for situational awareness.

Despite what a lot think, there are quite a few airplanes flying around in the system that do not have IFR certified GPS in the airplane. As it has always been, you cannot accept an approach that you don't have the equipment to fly.
 
david0tey said:
I recently got access to a /U equipped (Transponder, no GPS) 172 and would like to use my newly acquired instrument rating. Are there many people out there flying IFR without GPS these days? Can I legally accept a direct to clearance using an Ipad if it is offered to me?

I had someone tell me that filing IFR without a GPS is frowned upon these days because it is an inconvenience in the system? Is this true?
Click to expand...

You sure can fly IFR in it, but you can't accept direct (nor should they issue a /U) off airway routing that relies on an iPad. Not a huge problem in functionality enroute, but not having all the approaches available is a bummer.
 
If ATC gives you a direct you can always tell them you're not GPS equipped, but will happily accept radar vectors direct.
 
david0tey said:
I recently got access to a /U equipped (Transponder, no GPS) 172 ------- Can I legally accept a direct to clearance using an Ipad if it is offered to me?
Click to expand...
An Ipad isn't legal for sole source IFR navigation. OTOH filing /U isn't as much of a handicap as you might think. You can file direct if you're within the navaid service volumes or farther if you're in a radar environment.
 
If ATC gives you a direct you can always tell them you're not GPS equipped, but will happily accept radar vectors direct.
Click to expand...

Very good advice! :)
 
somorris said:
You cannot file /G, but you can ask for radar vectors direct then use the iPad for situational awareness.
Click to expand...

When all I had was a handheld GPS, I would file /U.

But more than once, I advised a controller I could proceed direct to a fix, but only with an unapproved GPS, and was told it was approved. My assumption was that as long as I was in radar contact, they'd keep an eye on me in case I went too far astray.

Have no idea if it was kosher, but there you have it.
 
RotorAndWing said:
If ATC gives you a direct you can always tell them you're not GPS equipped, but will happily accept radar vectors direct.
Click to expand...
I might add….ATC will likely clear you "fly heading XXX direct ABC when able". When you're receiving a navigable signal from ABC you can consider yourself "able" :wink2:
 
peerlesscowboy said:
I might add….ATC will likely clear you "fly heading XXX direct ABC when able". When you're receiving a navigable signal from ABC you can consider yourself "able" :wink2:
Click to expand...

And I might add that you can even suggest a heading (well actually a course) for those vectors that will ensure a nice direct routing.
 
RotorAndWing said:
If ATC gives you a direct you can always tell them you're not GPS equipped, but will happily accept radar vectors direct.
Click to expand...

So what if they are clearing you direct to a VOR? If you've got a nav radio and you're within range of course. Seems like you could go direct no problem /U
 
StinkBug said:
So what if they are clearing you direct to a VOR? If you've got a nav radio and you're within range of course. Seems like you could go direct no problem /U
Click to expand...

As long as the terrain/altitude is copacetic, that happens frequently.
 
"/A, can't take Direct %$%$, but if you give me heading ### I'll fly straight to it"
 
TheGolfPilot said:
"/A, can't take Direct %$%$, but if you give me heading ### I'll fly straight to it"
Click to expand...


That would work for me. Years ago I did an airborne favor for ATC, afterwards they gave me direct my destination. My destination was in NC, I just left MS. I just sweetened up the original heading with navaids along the way, no GPS.

I don't recall ever needing a heading adjustment from ATC.
 
Flew 12 yrs in the Army with /U (no iPad) the majority of the time. While it might have been an inconvenience to me, it's not an inconvenience to the ATC system. I could still take vectors out of range from a navaid and proceed direct when able.
 
StinkBug said:
So what if they are clearing you direct to a VOR? If you've got a nav radio and you're within range of course. Seems like you could go direct no problem /U
Click to expand...

I recall one of my "unapproved approved GPS clearances" was in TX, given a clearance to a VOR about 300 nm away. I proceeded direct long before the VOR signal came in - with ATC's blessing.
 
StinkBug said:
So what if they are clearing you direct to a VOR? If you've got a nav radio and you're within range of course. Seems like you could go direct no problem /U
Click to expand...

True.

Many years ago I was flying 727's and we would depart the east coast for SFO. Back at that time we didn't have any long range nav, so it was not uncommon to get an ATC clearance of "Fly heading 285, radar vectors Coaldale" (the first VOR on the arrival to SFO). That was 2000+ miles away.
 
Even now they sometimes use the phrasing, "Heading xyz, direct ABC when able". That's with an airplane which clearly has GPS/RNAV.
 
I was /U for many years with VFR only GPS. You can't accept a direct-to via GPS only, but if ATC is amenable, they can issue you a vector direct, and you can "supplement" that vector by using your GPS. Usually a call like "I'll accept vectors direct XYZ, suggested heading 247" pretty much says you are reading the track straight from a GPS unit. Both ATC and you will know what is going on, but you are still on a vector, and must be in radar contact throughout. This gambit may not always be possible due to terrain, radar coverage, traffic, or safety concerns.
 
I was doing a short flight to BDL and clearance gave us BDR direct to destination and we told him we were unable because we were /U. After BDR he gave us radar vectors to BDL. On the way coming back the GON VOR was out so the controller had to give us vectors to GON VOR then we were able to follow the rest of our routing.
 
RotorAndWing said:
If ATC gives you a direct you can always tell them you're not GPS equipped, but will happily accept radar vectors direct.
Click to expand...

Yep. I do that all the time. They know you're actually using a GPS, but as long as you're using your compass/DG as your "primary" nav you're good to go.
 
FastEddieB said:
When all I had was a handheld GPS, I would file /U.

But more than once, I advised a controller I could proceed direct to a fix, but only with an unapproved GPS, and was told it was approved. My assumption was that as long as I was in radar contact, they'd keep an eye on me in case I went too far astray.

Have no idea if it was kosher, but there you have it.
Click to expand...

I flew with someone that did the same thing. He told ATC that he had a handheld, and they cleared him direct. This was in an area where radar coverage is very good and it was CAVU, so maybe that did have something to do with it.
 
Last edited:
I think it mainly has to do with ATC not knowing or caring whether your nav equipment meets regulatory requirements as long as you're able to fly the route they give you.
 
rbridges said:
I flew with someone that did the same thing. He told ATC that he had a handheld, and they cleared him direct. This was in an area where radar coverage is very good and it was CAVU, so maybe that did have something to do with it.
Click to expand...

ATC isn't the FAA cops. That's FSDO.

Controllers get ticked off when forced to tattle on pilots.

Of course, there is nothing preventing a safety inspector from listening on an open frequency. Except perhaps for a big pile of other stuff to do.
 
I flew an airplane which was flown by a number of people to the same destinations. ATC would sometimes ask, "Can you go direct today?"
 
They should be looking at your equipment suffix and assigning your routing based on that. A VFR GPS isn't /G. There was a reason why we had the equipment suffix alphabet little ditty at ATC school in Memphis. We had to have that crap memorized. :yes:
 
Last edited:
I don't know what everyone else was filing but it was pretty obvious that the controller knew some pilots had a handheld GPS and would accept direct. It seemed like an inside joke.
 
RotorAndWing said:
True.

Many years ago I was flying 727's and we would depart the east coast for SFO. Back at that time we didn't have any long range nav, so it was not uncommon to get an ATC clearance of "Fly heading 285, radar vectors Coaldale" (the first VOR on the arrival to SFO). That was 2000+ miles away.
Click to expand...

This. It's not like off-airway routing didn't exist before GPS and /G came along, it was just done differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top