I'm a new IFR pilot, having gotten my ticket end of January.

One thing I've quickly picked up on is that ATC pretty much expects
everybody to be able to navigate direct. If you tell them you've got a
VFR GPS (in your remarks), they'll happily give you direct clearances
and instructions while airborne. I've learned to deal with that (by
really learning how to use my GPS), though 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). (I am planning to do somewhat regular DB updates
from here on out, but it's not going to be every month.)

Anyway, on to my question. A couple times now, when I've been
navigating direct, either to a fix or airport identifiable by VORs or
one that isn't (such as an uncontrolled field with no navaid), I've been
asked to "verify direct XXX" when I'm off course by a quite small amount
- no more than 10 degrees. Or, perhaps, I've gotten off course a bit
and have a larger heading correction (20-25 degrees) in to get back on
track, momentarily. I've never had a controller sound annoyed, but it
does concern me a bit that they see fit to more or less ask "Are you
sure you know where you're going"??

I've vowed to put a stop to this, and I have realized that I should
probably pay even closer attention to my heading. I am meticulous about
holding alt but, obviously, heading is important too. Flying
single-pilot IFR with no autopilot, with turbulence, it can be a
challenge in those moments where the workload is high for a bit..

My two-part question is 1) Should I be concerned at all by being asked
such a question by ATC? And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading
tolerance", anyway?? Meaning, what sort of heading deviance is large
enough that you can be violated for it? Does such a figure even exist?
I expected this to be something fairly simple to find in the regs and
it was not.

TIA.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL-IA
~'79 C152
~MWC

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:29:32 GMT, Paul Folbrecht wrote:

Hi Paul,

> I'm a new IFR pilot, having gotten my ticket end of January.
>
> One thing I've quickly picked up on is that ATC pretty much expects
> everybody to be able to navigate direct. If you tell them you've got a
> VFR GPS (in your remarks), they'll happily give you direct clearances
> and instructions while airborne. I've learned to deal with that (by
> really learning how to use my GPS), though 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). (I am planning to do somewhat regular DB updates
> from here on out, but it's not going to be every month.)

I asked this question in the rec.aviation.student newsgroup. Check out
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/messages/13ca6b1e08d0f7fe,2c2ef0855cdc4037,78ae4a6e9ef32ab6 ,5078b9ba32f013ef,fe9418a6735312e0,4fc6c6a234d4e1b c,130331ee979a2e97,78f2d4ad0b0a440f,55ce7e44913cc6 fe,764ae8325d37e393?thread_id=bdb45a5655865231&mode=thread&noheader=1&q=verify+heading+lieberma#doc_13ca6b1e08d0f7fe
for the responses to the exact same question I asked.

For my trip experiences, check out
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/messages/e6ec6c5029ce15c6,c34500b275ab3fad,e3d6f248957bba0a ,420b2e9eb5510baf,4157e1ccac6d0312,f4138d8c5773a23 c?thread_id=f12f0b8606b2c60c&mode=thread&noheader=1&q=lieberma+2g2#doc_c34500b275ab3fad

Hope this helps.

Allen

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.

> (I am planning to do somewhat regular DB updates
> from here on out, but it's not going to be every month.)

OK, that's up to you. There's no legal requirement to ever update the
database on a VFR GPS. But, keep in mind the following:

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is
the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

91.103 Preflight action.
Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar
with all available information concerning that flight

Those are pretty simple rules. If the guy says "direct FUBAR", you accept
it, and then head off in the wrong direction because your database is out
of date, they'll probably throw 91.103 at you.

> I've vowed to put a stop to this, and I have realized that I should
> probably pay even closer attention to my heading. I am meticulous about
> holding alt but, obviously, heading is important too. Flying
> single-pilot IFR with no autopilot, with turbulence, it can be a
> challenge in those moments where the workload is high for a bit..

Holding altitude and heading are the two core fundamental skills of IFR
flying.

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote:
> Anyway, on to my question. A couple times now, when I've been
> navigating direct, either to a fix or airport identifiable by VORs or
> one that isn't (such as an uncontrolled field with no navaid), I've
> been asked to "verify direct XXX" when I'm off course by a quite small
> amount - no more than 10 degrees.

They may not be asking because they think you're off course, they may
simply want to verify what clearance you're flying. I get this question
almost every time I fly IFR direct from Mobile to Dothan, AL. It's a
short trip, but it uses the airspaces of four TRACONS, so maybe that has
something to do with it. Thanks to the GPS's being coupled to the
autopilot, I'm never off course by more than 100 feet, but I still get
asked.

> 1) Should I be concerned at all by being asked such a question by ATC?

Nah.

> And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading tolerance", anyway?? Meaning,
> what sort of heading deviance is large enough that you can be violated
> for it?

Well, controllers can only infer your heading from the motion of your
radar target; their displays don't have a heading readout. They aren't
going to react until you've been off heading long enough to look like
you're going somewhere other than expected. You usually won't get
written up for a violation unless you create a hazard, such as a breach
of separation minimums.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:29:32 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:

>My two-part question is 1) Should I be concerned at all by being asked
>such a question by ATC?

Perhaps. It may just be controller confusion (can't remember if you
were cleared direct or not). However, there is a very good chance
your groundtrack is not matching up with 'direct ABC VOR', so the
controller is either prompting you to get back on course or wants to
make sure that you are indeed going to ABC VOR.

Does your GPS have an HSI display? It makes holding the course much
easier.

And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading >tolerance", anyway??

I don't think there is one (other than as defined by the PTS during
your IR checkride). The only way a controller knows if you are off
heading is if your ground track changes. Given the sample/update rate
of radar displays, I would think most short term heading deviations go
unnoticed.

***Question for the controllers on the newsgroup: How often does your
radar display update? Every 15 seconds? 30?

Realistically, an occasional heading excursion of 10degrees should not
matter (grabbing a chart), but I do think 25 is excessive (even if
only temporary). If you are in IMC and drifting that far off heading,
you need to work on your scan and control, or limit the activities
that cause the distraction (grabbing maps, lunch, etc).

-Nathan

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>

Why ask for something you can't safely execute?

Oh, I agree entirely. I should have mentioned that was only once, and I
also might have mentioned that we had a total vacuum failure within 5
minutes of that and the DG may already have been spinning down (we were
in VMC with me wearing foggles).

I got quite good at holding heading very accurately during my training.
I just have to learn to not let distractions interfere with that,
even momentarily.

Man, even a single-axis AP would be nice!

> Realistically, an occasional heading excursion of 10degrees should not
> matter (grabbing a chart), but I do think 25 is excessive (even if
> only temporary). If you are in IMC and drifting that far off heading,
> you need to work on your scan and control, or limit the activities
> that cause the distraction (grabbing maps, lunch, etc).
>
> -Nathan

> 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.

That is exactly what I did the first time I got such a clearance. I was
told (this was being relayed by the class D airport's ground controller)
that I "should" be able to handle that clearance with "a GPS". (Note -
not "VFR GPS"; this had me wondering if ATC is even making any
distinction between IFR/non-IFR GPS!.)

Flustered, I canceled IFR and went VFR. A related factor was that that
routing was taking me excessively off-course, enough that I would have
then had to include a fuel stop. I knew I could get there faster VFR,
under the O'Hare bravo, and I did.

> Holding altitude and heading are the two core fundamental skills of IFR
> flying.

Yes, yes, yes, thank you. Ok, I had that coming.

> One thing I've quickly picked up on is that ATC pretty much expects
> everybody to be able to navigate direct.

expects is the keyword. It isn't required and often I get
told "fly heading XXX, when able direct YYYY."

> If you tell them you've got a VFR GPS (in your remarks), they'll happily
>give you direct clearances

they'll happily give you direct JFK to SFO. It's up to you to
do it. VFR GPS means nothing to them since you are still a /A or /U.

>(I don't
> keep the DB current and there's certainly no reason at all they should
> expect that I do).

no one except the PIC checks to make sure a plane's panel-mounted
database is current. ATC sure doesn't.

What you are saying is the equivalent of a /G airplane with out
of date databases. You are NOT legal to fly IFR with out of
date databases (there are exceptions but in general, the answer
is no).

Not to be Mr. Police Officer or mean about it.....you said you are
newly minted IFR pilot when did you
take your written test? Did you study the Gleim. there are only
about 10 questions on GPS including a couple on the exact
thing you are asking about. I took mine not too long ago (my
checkride is coming up)


> I've been
> asked to "verify direct XXX" when I'm off course by a quite small amount
> - no more than 10 degrees.

Course probably doesn't matter (a guess). If you want to fly S-turns
down a victor airway, they'll probably think you're drunk but
as long as you stay with the airway you are probably legal. If
you are really S-turning it, they might say something.

The other reason they might ask is if one controller says "cleared
direct XXX, contact Socal on 134.65." When you contact
the next controller you should say "Airbus 12345, 2000, direct XXX."
Just like if they give you a heading and are handed off, you should
tell them your newly assigned heading. Don't assume anything. A
friend of a friend was given a heading, passed to another controller,
10 minutes later he flew into a mountain. Controller probably was
dazing off as it was late at night and didn't realize the pilot
was on a heading and not on an airway with a MEA.

> I've vowed to put a stop to this, and I have realized that I should
> probably pay even closer attention to my heading.

just trim out the plane perfectly including rudder trim so your
TC is perfectly level. It's just like your elevator trim. Get
them perfect and the plane will stay straight.


> My two-part question is 1) Should I be concerned at all by being asked
> such a question by ATC?

concerned, no. But of course you'll wonder. Just like when I
flew into LAS in an Archer. I made a nice radio call "Cherokee XXXXX,
6000, information bravo." They came back and asked if I had information
bravo. This happened on 2 controllers no less. I figure they're used
to dealing with 'real' airplanes that I can only dream of flying.

>And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading
> tolerance", anyway??

they probably couldn't care less about headings as long as you are where
you are. They might ask you so they know the winds aloft so when they
provide RV the airplane goes where they intend to go.

Gerald Sylvester

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is exactly what I did the first time I got such a clearance. I was
> told (this was being relayed by the class D airport's ground controller)
> that I "should" be able to handle that clearance with "a GPS". (Note -
> not "VFR GPS"; this had me wondering if ATC is even making any distinction
> between IFR/non-IFR GPS!.)
>

From an ATC perspective in enroute use there is no distinction.


>
> Flustered, I canceled IFR and went VFR. A related factor was that that
> routing was taking me excessively off-course, enough that I would have
> then had to include a fuel stop.

A direct route took you excessively off course?

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> they'll happily give you direct JFK to SFO. It's up to you to
> do it.

Direct to SFO from JFK? Unlikely.

>> keep the DB current and there's certainly no reason at all they should
>> expect that I do).
>
>
> no one except the PIC checks to make sure a plane's panel-mounted
> database is current. ATC sure doesn't.

No kidding. My point was that, being that it's a _VFR_ GPS and that I
did _not_ file /G, I am under no regulatory requirement at all to keep
it current.


> What you are saying is the equivalent of a /G airplane with out
> of date databases. You are NOT legal to fly IFR with out of
> date databases (there are exceptions but in general, the answer
> is no).

Yes, there are exceptions for enroute ops, but that's another matter.

> Not to be Mr. Police Officer or mean about it.....you said you are
> newly minted IFR pilot when did you
> take your written test? Did you study the Gleim. there are only
> about 10 questions on GPS including a couple on the exact
> thing you are asking about. I took mine not too long ago (my
> checkride is coming up)

I took it it November and got a 98%. I am aware of the regs governing
IFR GPS use. No offense, but you missed my point.

Direct to intersections (that I certainly hadn't filed for), not direct
to my dest.

> A direct route took you excessively off course?
>
>

> direct XXX, contact Socal on 134.65." When you contact
> the next controller you should say "Airbus 12345, 2000, direct XXX."
> Just like if they give you a heading and are handed off, you should
> tell them your newly assigned heading. Don't assume anything. A

I haven't been doing that. That right there could (and probably does)
explain 2 of the 3 cases I can recall of being asked this question.

The last one, the one where I know I was a bit off course, was the
aforementioned occurance where we lost vacuum just moments later..
though actually, honestly, I don't really think that was the culprit
(though I normally do fly by the DG and VOR head and not the GPS ground
track).

This was my first time left seat in this particular airplane as well,
and I was studying an approach plate (no excuse, I know).

And, as I noted, not on this or any other time did I detect annoyance
from the controller.. in fact she (Chicago center) was very polite and
chipper.

I'm sure (well, 99% sure) I have nothing to worry about.

> just trim out the plane perfectly including rudder trim so your
> TC is perfectly level. It's just like your elevator trim. Get
> them perfect and the plane will stay straight.

Rudder trim? You mean the little tab on the back of the rudder? :-) I
fly a '79 C-152, and, no, it does not fly completely hands-off level.
Few of them do!

> concerned, no. But of course you'll wonder. Just like when I
> flew into LAS in an Archer. I made a nice radio call "Cherokee XXXXX,
> 6000, information bravo." They came back and asked if I had information
> bravo. This happened on 2 controllers no less. I figure they're used
> to dealing with 'real' airplanes that I can only dream of flying.

Another thing I've wondered about is how often the pilot is told when
they'll be filing paperwork. It seems the norm is the dreaded "call
this number on landing" but I know that they don't have to do that. If
a controller was really peeved at you, he might take perverse pleasure
in making sure you didn't know what was coming.

Before somebody replies, I know that controllers are not out to violate
pilots and are almost all good guys & gals.

>> And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading tolerance", anyway??

I should have stated the question as "course-deviation tolerance".

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
>
> Direct to intersections (that I certainly hadn't filed for), not direct to
> my dest.
>

What had you filed?

ATC can't see your heading, just your ground track. They would have no way
of knowing that you are off-course by a "couple of degrees."

Bob Gardner

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> I'm a new IFR pilot, having gotten my ticket end of January.
>
> One thing I've quickly picked up on is that ATC pretty much expects
> everybody to be able to navigate direct. If you tell them you've got a
> VFR GPS (in your remarks), they'll happily give you direct clearances and
> instructions while airborne. I've learned to deal with that (by really
> learning how to use my GPS), though 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). (I
> am planning to do somewhat regular DB updates from here on out, but it's
> not going to be every month.)
>
> Anyway, on to my question. A couple times now, when I've been navigating
> direct, either to a fix or airport identifiable by VORs or one that isn't
> (such as an uncontrolled field with no navaid), I've been asked to "verify
> direct XXX" when I'm off course by a quite small amount - no more than 10
> degrees. Or, perhaps, I've gotten off course a bit and have a larger
> heading correction (20-25 degrees) in to get back on track, momentarily.
> I've never had a controller sound annoyed, but it does concern me a bit
> that they see fit to more or less ask "Are you sure you know where you're
> going"??
>
> I've vowed to put a stop to this, and I have realized that I should
> probably pay even closer attention to my heading. I am meticulous about
> holding alt but, obviously, heading is important too. Flying single-pilot
> IFR with no autopilot, with turbulence, it can be a challenge in those
> moments where the workload is high for a bit..
>
> My two-part question is 1) Should I be concerned at all by being asked
> such a question by ATC? And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading
> tolerance", anyway?? Meaning, what sort of heading deviance is large
> enough that you can be violated for it? Does such a figure even exist? I
> expected this to be something fairly simple to find in the regs and it was
> not.
>
> TIA.
>
> ~Paul Folbrecht
> ~PP-SEL-IA
> ~'79 C152
> ~MWC
>

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>
> ATC can't see your heading, just your ground track. They would have no way
> of knowing that you are off-course by a "couple of degrees."
>

Sure they do. If the observed track is other than the cleared route the
aircraft is off course.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:07:35 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:

>Oh, I agree entirely. I should have mentioned that was only once, and I
>also might have mentioned that we had a total vacuum failure within 5
>minutes of that and the DG may already have been spinning down (we were
>in VMC with me wearing foggles).
>
>I got quite good at holding heading very accurately during my training.
> I just have to learn to not let distractions interfere with that,
>even momentarily.

As you pointed out earlier. Solo IFR in IMC without an AP is one of
the most demanding tasks in flying. It helps to have a non-pilot
friend in the right seat (to hand you maps or lunch!).

>Man, even a single-axis AP would be nice!

I have a wing-leveler in my Cherokee 180. Although wing levelers
aren't the greatest, they do keep the plane upright and generally
pointed in the same direction. I am glad to have it, but of course
would like a 2-axis coupled AP.

-Nathan

Ok. I was going from Milwaukee to Indianapolis: KMWC to KEYE (I think -
Indy Exec). I filed VORs starting with LJT to DPA (DuPage). DuPage is
on the western edge of the ORD bravo. I figured this was enough
out-of-the-way of the bravo to satisfy KORD approach. I was wrong, and
have since learned that the route I was given is pretty much a preferred
route going IFR south through that airspace.

That route involved vectors then several intersections, as I'd said.
The problem was compounded by the fact that I'm nearly certain that the
tower controller mispoke and told me that the first waypoint was D32 on
the R270 from BAE. 32 miles west of BAE?! Are you kidding me?! Turns
out it's the R207, I discovered later, which obviously made much more
sense. (I'm nearly certain that she mispoke, and I didn't mis-hear, as
207 was far closer to what I was expecting and where I was looking on
the chart initially.)

This is with me sitting in the runup area - amended clearance. My first
one was vectors then as filed, I believe. Sitting there in the runup
area, realizing my GPS DB was not current (nowhere close), AND being
under the incorrect assumption that they wanted to send me half-way to
Madison, I elected, as I said, to reject the clearance and go VFR -
weather was well above mins and I figured I'd get a popup going into
Indy (where weather had been a bit worse, cigs around 3000 if I recall)
if I needed it.

Other times I've been told to go direct involve uncontrolled fields with
no navaid, after I've already been vectored off-course. An example
would be going to Morey, C29, which is about 20 miles west-southwest of
Madison, KMSN. I file direct to the MSN VOR, which is on the field, but
am sometimes vectored around the airport (MSN is Class C and busy on
weekends), then instructed to go direct C29. No problem with the VFR
GPS, and obviously impossible without it. Of course, that doesn't
bother me as I'm usually fairly confident that Morey hasn't moved. :-)
I've noticed this also happens when I haven't even put "VFR GPS" in the
remarks.

Whatever. I'm learning how the system actually works (which is
obviously not quite what we are told in training) and going with it. I
know how to use my GPS (Garmin 295) inside-out now (did you know it can
make omelettes?) and am going to verify intersection locations on the
charts and keep the DB current enough that I should be quite unlikely to
have problems. And probably start getting my clearances, when there's
any doubt as to what I'll actually get, before engine start.

I would guess that this is probably close to what most GA pilots who fly
IFR w/out an IFR GPS are doing.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Direct to intersections (that I certainly hadn't filed for), not direct to
>>my dest.
>>
>
>
> What had you filed?
>
>

Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
> this had me wondering if ATC is even making any
> distinction between IFR/non-IFR GPS!.)

The short answer is "probably not". Like I said, controllers are not
pilots, and I suspect most of them have no idea about the regulatory issues
surrounding GPS certifications (nor should they).

There is one official way you communicate to ATC what navigational
capabilities your aircraft has, that that's the equipment suffix on your
type code. File /U, and they'll give you clearances you can execute with
VOR receivers. File /A, and they'll expect you to be able to identify DME
fixes. File /G, and they'll expect you to be able to go direct to any
en-route fix and fly GPS approaches.

On the other hand, if you file /U and put "VFR GPS on board", you're
leaving it to them to guess what you want, since "VFR GPS on board" has no
official meaning. The most common guess seems to be "treat me as if I had
filed /G", so they do. It turns out that this is indeed what most people
want, so it works out and everybody's happy. You seem to be wanting
something different, but I'm not sure what it is.

Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
> Ok. I was going from Milwaukee to Indianapolis: KMWC to KEYE (I think -
> Indy Exec). I filed VORs starting with LJT to DPA (DuPage). DuPage is
> on the western edge of the ORD bravo. I figured this was enough
> out-of-the-way of the bravo to satisfy KORD approach. I was wrong, and
> have since learned that the route I was given is pretty much a preferred
> route going IFR south through that airspace.

Unfortunately for us small-fry, IFR routes in busy airspace are often
driven by ATC needs and the traffic flow in and out of the major hubs more
than anything else. If you want to fly with the big boys, that's just
something you need to accept.

> That route involved vectors then several intersections, as I'd said.
> The problem was compounded by the fact that I'm nearly certain that the
> tower controller mispoke and told me that the first waypoint was D32 on
> the R270 from BAE. 32 miles west of BAE?! Are you kidding me?! Turns
> out it's the R207, I discovered later, which obviously made much more
> sense. (I'm nearly certain that she mispoke, and I didn't mis-hear, as
> 207 was far closer to what I was expecting and where I was looking on
> the chart initially.)

If you get a clearance that doesn't make sense, ask for clarification. Did
the controller mis-speak, or did you mis-hear? No way to know at this
point. But, either way, the way it should have played out was:

"Confirm the first fix is BAE R270 D32?"

"Negative, it's the R207 D32. R207, not R270".

"OK, that makes more sense, thanks".

Did you read back your clearance with R270, and get "readback correct", or
did you never get that far?

> This is with me sitting in the runup area - amended clearance. My first
> one was vectors then as filed, I believe. Sitting there in the runup
> area, realizing my GPS DB was not current (nowhere close)

I'm confused. Surely your database didn't go out of currency sometime
between when you did your pre-flight planning and the time you got to the
runnup area?

> Other times I've been told to go direct involve uncontrolled fields with
> no navaid, after I've already been vectored off-course.

If you can't do it, tell the guy, "Unable direct XYZ, negative RNAV".
He'll come back with something you can do, "OK, fly heading 120 to
intercept V456, then as previously cleared".

> Whatever. I'm learning how the system actually works (which is
> obviously not quite what we are told in training)

Ah, yes, the big enlightenment. The real-world IFR system isn't quite what
most people get trained for. Sometimes the differences are a real
eye-opener.

Nitpick, Steve. This is another example of a pilot thinking that ATC sees an
image of the airplane rather than a data block.

I'll be at the NATCA meeting in May...will you? I'm neither a controller nor
a NATCA member, but I go anyway.

Bob Gardner

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> ATC can't see your heading, just your ground track. They would have no
>> way of knowing that you are off-course by a "couple of degrees."
>>
>
> Sure they do. If the observed track is other than the cleared route the
> aircraft is off course.
>

Ok, that's a good point indeed - why bother with the remark if I don't
want direct clearances? My original intention was to allow me to go
direct to airports that I happen to know have not moved.. no danger
there. It was direct to intersections that I had no particular prior
knowledge of that caused me some concern. I had never intended to _ask_
to go direct to such.

I'll save you the trouble of pointing out that that's inconstent and
that ATC is never going to make such a distinction. I realize that..
now. Basically, what's occurred was me going through a bit of a
real-world learning phase and fully pondering the nuances of VFR GPS use
in IFR.

Your implication that I haven't fully expressed my thoughts on this
question in this thread is on the money. Anyway, the discussion moved
down a tangent - I hadn't really intended to complain about this -
though I guess I did, reading my post now - it threw me for a bit but I
decided how to deal with it.

I realized nobody's had an answer to my original question - how far
off-course can you be before being officially violated?

Roy Smith wrote:

> Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
>
>>this had me wondering if ATC is even making any
>>distinction between IFR/non-IFR GPS!.)
>
>
> The short answer is "probably not". Like I said, controllers are not
> pilots, and I suspect most of them have no idea about the regulatory issues
> surrounding GPS certifications (nor should they).
>
> There is one official way you communicate to ATC what navigational
> capabilities your aircraft has, that that's the equipment suffix on your
> type code. File /U, and they'll give you clearances you can execute with
> VOR receivers. File /A, and they'll expect you to be able to identify DME
> fixes. File /G, and they'll expect you to be able to go direct to any
> en-route fix and fly GPS approaches.
>
> On the other hand, if you file /U and put "VFR GPS on board", you're
> leaving it to them to guess what you want, since "VFR GPS on board" has no
> official meaning. The most common guess seems to be "treat me as if I had
> filed /G", so they do. It turns out that this is indeed what most people
> want, so it works out and everybody's happy. You seem to be wanting
> something different, but I'm not sure what it is.

> Unfortunately for us small-fry, IFR routes in busy airspace are often
> driven by ATC needs and the traffic flow in and out of the major hubs more
> than anything else. If you want to fly with the big boys, that's just
> something you need to accept.

I realize that, but the question was how far out of the way do you have
to be.. I guess it's entirely clear of the ORD bravo, in that case.

> If you get a clearance that doesn't make sense, ask for clarification. Did
> the controller mis-speak, or did you mis-hear? No way to know at this
> point. But, either way, the way it should have played out was:

I had no idea the controller misspoke as I took her at her word.

> "Confirm the first fix is BAE R270 D32?"
>
> "Negative, it's the R207 D32. R207, not R270".
>
> "OK, that makes more sense, thanks".
>
> Did you read back your clearance with R270, and get "readback correct", or
> did you never get that far?

Nope - hearing 32 out on the R270 was all I needed to say "to heck with
this". It would have been foolish for me to accept the clearance given
the situation. As I said earlier, with the winds I was pushing my
fuel-reserve with my route, with my extra margin for the bit of
vectoring I knew I might get, and the new clearance would have
definitely mandated a fuel stop. I didn't want that.

>>This is with me sitting in the runup area - amended clearance. My first
>>one was vectors then as filed, I believe. Sitting there in the runup
>>area, realizing my GPS DB was not current (nowhere close)
>
>
> I'm confused. Surely your database didn't go out of currency sometime
> between when you did your pre-flight planning and the time you got to the
> runnup area?

Around in circles we go. :-) Though I'd filed "VFR GPS" in my remarks,
I'd done that only to use it to my benefit to be able to go direct an
airport when _I_ wanted to, and, thus, I wasn't worried about the
database. I did NOT realize or expect this to be basically treated as a
/G by ATC. I know better now. Anyway, again.. that was just part of
the reasons I had for just not bothering with IFR for that flight...

>>Other times I've been told to go direct involve uncontrolled fields with
>>no navaid, after I've already been vectored off-course.
>
>
> If you can't do it, tell the guy, "Unable direct XYZ, negative RNAV".
> He'll come back with something you can do, "OK, fly heading 120 to
> intercept V456, then as previously cleared".

As I noted I'm not uncomfortable going direct a field I know is there
with the GPS.. that's the reason I was mentioning it in the remarks.

>>Whatever. I'm learning how the system actually works (which is
>>obviously not quite what we are told in training)
>
>
> Ah, yes, the big enlightenment. The real-world IFR system isn't quite what
> most people get trained for. Sometimes the differences are a real
> eye-opener.

Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
>Whatever. I'm learning how the system actually works (which is
>obviously not quite what we are told in training) and going with it. I
>know how to use my GPS (Garmin 295) inside-out now (did you know it can
>make omelettes?) and am going to verify intersection locations on the

Huh? The 295 can be used to file VFR GPS?

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>> direct XXX, contact Socal on 134.65." When you contact
>> the next controller you should say "Airbus 12345, 2000, direct XXX."
>> Just like if they give you a heading and are handed off, you should
>> tell them your newly assigned heading. Don't assume anything. A
> I haven't been doing that. That right there could (and probably does)
> explain 2 of the 3 cases I can recall of being asked this question.

from my very limited experience the first controller will
say "fly heading XXX and intercept V25..." Usually the next
controller all you have to say is "heading XXX" and can leave
off the intercept V25 as that will clue them in enough.

> And, as I noted, not on this or any other time did I detect annoyance
> from the controller.. in fact she (Chicago center) was very polite and
> chipper.

it's amazing how you can really see personalities and/or moods over the
air.

> Rudder trim? You mean the little tab on the back of the rudder? :-) I
> fly a '79 C-152, and, no, it does not fly completely hands-off level.
> Few of them do!

I didn't even know a C152 flies. ;-) j/k. The other way to do it
is just crack open a door. hehehe.

> Another thing I've wondered about is how often the pilot is told when
> they'll be filing paperwork.

I've heard that it takes number of things. 1, affect safety of flight.
2, not apologize and sound like you did everything right and they
are wrong. 3, they are in a bad mood. I'll tell you when it happens
to me although I don't exactly plan on it. ;-)

> It seems the norm is the dreaded "call
> this number on landing" but I know that they don't have to do that.

well the other day I heard a pilot ask the SQL Tower for the controllers
name. She got the initials. I guess it can work both ways.

> Before somebody replies, I know that controllers are not out to violate
> pilots and are almost all good guys & gals.

agreed. They've help my butt more times than they've given me a hard
time.

>>> And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading tolerance", anyway??
> I should have stated the question as "course-deviation tolerance".

I've never heard of any but that doesn't mean much. I presume as
long as you are within the +/-4nm of the airway they don't care.
You violate their aircraft separation and then they might 'violate'
you though.

Maybe the best thing to do is don't mention the VFR GPS as it implies
that you are /G.

Gerald

>
>> What you are saying is the equivalent of a /G airplane with out
>> of date databases. You are NOT legal to fly IFR with out of
>> date databases (there are exceptions but in general, the answer
>> is no).

Not true. It depends on the individual GPS. RTFM.

Bob Gardner wrote:

> ATC can't see your heading, just your ground track. They would have no way
> of knowing that you are off-course by a "couple of degrees."

The only way ATC notices a 2 degree error is if where you are supposed
to be going happens to follow an airway.

Blanche wrote:

> Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
>
>>Whatever. I'm learning how the system actually works (which is
>>obviously not quite what we are told in training) and going with it. I
>>know how to use my GPS (Garmin 295) inside-out now (did you know it can
>>make omelettes?) and am going to verify intersection locations on the
>
>
> Huh? The 295 can be used to file VFR GPS?

Any GPS not certified for IFR is the same in the eyes of the FAA.

My take is direct gives you the same horizontal and vertical tolerances
that an airway does. Which I think, is 100' of altitude variation
(actually they don't usually see it, unless it is 150' or more), and 2
miles to the right or 2 miles to the left.

However it ATC sees you are veering off course, the controller can ask,
as a way of getting your attention to the deviation (even though it may
still be withing tolerances). He sees you are veering off course and
wants you to correct. But that doesn't mean you have busted your
clearance.

Take ATC statements for what they say. He wants you to verify that you
are direct.

Also, don't get in the habit of hitting the direct to button, you
should actually fly back to your course and get back on your original
direct track, not keep making new direct to tracks.

If you do a lot of IFR flying, get the Howie Keefe (www.aircharts.com),
text updates. You can use these to see if any of the waypoints have
changed if you update your GPS when the Keefe system begins (March I
think). This way you will know if your waypoints are up to date, even
though the database may not be.

>(there are exceptions but in general, the answer is no).
> Not true. It depends on the individual GPS. RTFM.

There are exceptions.....it depends......


ummm, we're saying the same thing, aren't we?
Agreed, RTFM always applies hence the indefinite statements.

Gerald

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok. I was going from Milwaukee to Indianapolis: KMWC to KEYE (I think -
> Indy Exec).
>

EYE is Eagle Creek Airpark, Indianapolis Executive Airport is TYQ.


>
> I filed VORs starting with LJT to DPA (DuPage). DuPage is on
> the western edge of the ORD bravo. I figured this was enough
> out-of-the-way of the bravo to satisfy KORD approach. I was wrong, and
> have since learned that the route I was given is pretty much a preferred
> route going IFR south through that airspace.
>

As a rule, Chicago approach doesn't do thruflights. You have to go around
them. Most singles prefer not to go around the east side due to the lake,
so if your destination is to the east you're in for a lengthy detour.

It's not enough to avoid the Class B airspace, you have to remain outside
the airspace delegated to Chicago approach and it is considerably larger
than the Class B and it is uncharted. A standard bypass routing is
RFD.V128.IKK. Were the intersections you were given on that airway?


>
> That route involved vectors then several intersections, as I'd said. The
> problem was compounded by the fact that I'm nearly certain that the tower
> controller mispoke and told me that the first waypoint was D32 on the R270
> from BAE. 32 miles west of BAE?! Are you kidding me?! Turns out it's
> the R207, I discovered later, which obviously made much more sense. (I'm
> nearly certain that she mispoke, and I didn't mis-hear, as 207 was far
> closer to what I was expecting and where I was looking on the chart
> initially.)
>

That would be JAYBE.


>
> Other times I've been told to go direct involve uncontrolled fields with
> no navaid, after I've already been vectored off-course. An example would
> be going to Morey, C29, which is about 20 miles west-southwest of Madison,
> KMSN. I file direct to the MSN VOR, which is on the field, but am
> sometimes vectored around the airport (MSN is Class C and busy on
> weekends), then instructed to go direct C29. No problem with the VFR GPS,
> and obviously impossible without it. Of course, that doesn't bother me as
> I'm usually fairly confident that Morey hasn't moved. :-) I've noticed
> this also happens when I haven't even put "VFR GPS" in the remarks.
>

Had you put "VFR GPS" in the remarks for your trip to Indianapolis?

Morey is about 8 miles WSW of MSN, by the way.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is one official way you communicate to ATC what navigational
> capabilities your aircraft has, that that's the equipment suffix on your
> type code. File /U, and they'll give you clearances you can execute with
> VOR receivers. File /A, and they'll expect you to be able to identify DME
> fixes. File /G, and they'll expect you to be able to go direct to any
> en-route fix and fly GPS approaches.
>

Whether you file /U, /A, or /G, ATC will expect you to be able to fly
whatever you file. If ATC must issue a reroute it should not require any
capability beyond what you indicated in your equipment suffix.


>
> On the other hand, if you file /U and put "VFR GPS on board", you're
> leaving it to them to guess what you want, since "VFR GPS on board" has no
> official meaning. The most common guess seems to be "treat me as if I had
> filed /G", so they do. It turns out that this is indeed what most people
> want, so it works out and everybody's happy. You seem to be wanting
> something different, but I'm not sure what it is.
>

What about those folks that file /A and airways and put "VFR GPS" in
remarks? What do they want?

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
>
> I realized nobody's had an answer to my original question - how far
> off-course can you be before being officially violated?
>

There is no fixed standard for that. You will likely only be violated if
your course deviation results in a loss of separation.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ok. I was going from Milwaukee to Indianapolis: KMWC to KEYE (I think -
>>Indy Exec).
>>
>
>
> EYE is Eagle Creek Airpark, Indianapolis Executive Airport is TYQ.

Ah yes.. had originally considered TYQ then switch to Eagle Creek. This
was 5-6 weeks ago now.

> That would be JAYBE.

Yup. That was the first one.

> Had you put "VFR GPS" in the remarks for your trip to Indianapolis?

Yes, I did. Are you going to tell me I got what I asked for? I
understand that, now. But, I maintain that, well, treating that remark
just like "/G" by ATC is perhaps not the most logical way to treat it.
Now that I know how the system works for real, though, great!!

> Morey is about 8 miles WSW of MSN, by the way.

Ah, Ok. I was off by a bit there. I'm usually SE of MSN when given the
direct clearance so it is somehwat longer than that (but not 20 I guess).

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
>
> I realize that, but the question was how far out of the way do you have to
> be.. I guess it's entirely clear of the ORD bravo, in that case.
>

No, you have to be entirely clear of Chicago approach control delegated
airspace. That's considerably larger than the Class B airspace.


>
> I had no idea the controller misspoke as I took her at her word.
>

Perhaps you misheard.


>
> Around in circles we go. :-) Though I'd filed "VFR GPS" in my remarks,
> I'd done that only to use it to my benefit to be able to go direct an
> airport when _I_ wanted to, and, thus, I wasn't worried about the
> database. I did NOT realize or expect this to be basically treated as a
> /G by ATC. I know better now. Anyway, again.. that was just part of the
> reasons I had for just not bothering with IFR for that flight...
>

>
> As I noted I'm not uncomfortable going direct a field I know is there with
> the GPS.. that's the reason I was mentioning it in the remarks.
>


The remarks section is useful for conveying pertinent information to ATC.
You don't need it to convey pertinent information to yourself. When you
reach a point where you'd like to go direct to an airport, just ask ATC for
direct to that airport.

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Had you put "VFR GPS" in the remarks for your trip to Indianapolis?
>
> Yes, I did. Are you going to tell me I got what I asked for? I
> understand that, now. But, I maintain that, well, treating that remark
> just like "/G" by ATC is perhaps not the most logical way to treat it.

What other logical way is there for ATC to treat it? What did you expect
ATC to conclude from that remark?

G. Sylvester wrote:

>> (there are exceptions but in general, the answer is no). Not true. It
>> depends on the individual GPS. RTFM.
>
>
> There are exceptions.....it depends......
>
>
> ummm, we're saying the same thing, aren't we?

There is no FAR that says the database must be current. The law is
whatever the manufacturer says it is in the manual. It's just the
opposite of what you said, most of the time an expired database is OK.
Especially for terminal and enroute ops. Only for approaches is it
pretty standard that the databse be current.

Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
> Yes, I did. Are you going to tell me I got what I asked for? I
> understand that, now. But, I maintain that, well, treating that remark
> just like "/G" by ATC is perhaps not the most logical way to treat it.

A man walks into a bar and says, "I'd like a glass of fruit juice, please".
The bartender smiles and starts to pour him a glass of juice.

Then the man says, "My wife doesn't like it when I drink whisky, but whisky
is what I really like, and, hey look, I even brought my own shotglass with
me (but my wife doesn't know, wink-wink, nudge-nudge)". The bartender
smiles, puts the juice away, and pours the man a shot of whisky.

Then the man says, "Why did you give me that whisky!? That's not what I
asked for".

The bartender smiles, and says, "Say intentions". The man says, "I'm going
to go drink in that bar on the other side of the street where they don't
have so many confusing rules I have to follow."

The bartender smiles and pours the shot of whisky on the man's shoes, at
which point the man becomes enlightened.

Didn't the man at some point make a post on an Internet forum whining
about the bartender's inability to read his mind??

Roy Smith wrote:

> Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
>
>>Yes, I did. Are you going to tell me I got what I asked for? I
>>understand that, now. But, I maintain that, well, treating that remark
>>just like "/G" by ATC is perhaps not the most logical way to treat it.
>
>
> A man walks into a bar and says, "I'd like a glass of fruit juice, please".
> The bartender smiles and starts to pour him a glass of juice.
>
> Then the man says, "My wife doesn't like it when I drink whisky, but whisky
> is what I really like, and, hey look, I even brought my own shotglass with
> me (but my wife doesn't know, wink-wink, nudge-nudge)". The bartender
> smiles, puts the juice away, and pours the man a shot of whisky.
>
> Then the man says, "Why did you give me that whisky!? That's not what I
> asked for".
>
> The bartender smiles, and says, "Say intentions". The man says, "I'm going
> to go drink in that bar on the other side of the street where they don't
> have so many confusing rules I have to follow."
>
> The bartender smiles and pours the shot of whisky on the man's shoes, at
> which point the man becomes enlightened.

Newps wrote:
>
>
> G. Sylvester wrote:
>
>>> (there are exceptions but in general, the answer is no). Not true.
>>> It depends on the individual GPS. RTFM.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are exceptions.....it depends......
>>
>>
>> ummm, we're saying the same thing, aren't we?
>
>
> There is no FAR that says the database must be current. The law is
> whatever the manufacturer says it is in the manual.

To pick a nit: actually it's whatever it says in the Pilot's Operating Handbook
Supplement. The manufacturer supplies a boilerplate suggested wording for the
SPOH and *usually* that's what gets sent in to Oklahoma City for the approval,
which is approved (or not) for each individual aircraft. I don't think there's
anything preventing someone sending in different wording, and if it gets
approved, it's approved. I don't know whether that's actually ever been done.

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.

"Patrick Dirks" > wrote in message
news:no-spam-to-pwd-90E9E7.16470019042005@localhost...
>
> 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.
>

There is no such restriction.


>
> 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.
>

For IFR enroute navigation off-airways or beyond normal usable navaid limits
a VFR hand-held GPS is just as relevant as an IFR certified unit.


>
> 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 fly a heading with your DG, not your GPS. If you want to proceed direct
somewhere with your handheld GPS then just ask for direct.


>
> 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.
>

Or you could drop all the silliness and just ask for direct 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.
>

ATC is just as responsible for you if you're proceeding direct to FUBAR.


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

"VFR GPS ON BOARD" tells ATC you have a VFR GPS on board and nothing else.
Stop playing these silly games. If you want to proceed direct them just
file direct. Doesn't matter if you file /U, /A, /G, or put "VFR GPS" in
remarks.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> For IFR enroute navigation off-airways or beyond normal usable navaid limits
> a VFR hand-held GPS is just as relevant as an IFR certified unit.

negative.

AIM 1-1-21. Global Positioning System (GPS)
Part e. Section 1. GPS Navigation......Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation....
during IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to situational
awareness.


> You fly a heading with your DG, not your GPS. If you want to proceed direct
> somewhere with your handheld GPS then just ask for direct.

and in the case of lost comms, do you just dead reckon? Do you base
your life off of something completely untested? Note, all of this
I assume your talking about flying to a point 300 nm away where
all nav systems (other than IRU's, VOR-DME FMS, etc. that large
aircraft have) do not work at such long distance.


Gerald Sylvester

"G. Sylvester" wrote:
>> For IFR enroute navigation off-airways or beyond normal usable navaid
>> limits a VFR hand-held GPS is just as relevant as an IFR certified
>> unit.
>
> negative.
>
> AIM 1-1-21. ...

You're looking in the wrong book.

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> negative.
>
> AIM 1-1-21. Global Positioning System (GPS)
> Part e. Section 1. GPS Navigation......Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
> and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation....
> during IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to situational
> awareness.
>

The AIM is not regulatory and there is no requirement that limits usage to
authorized units.


>
> and in the case of lost comms, do you just dead reckon?
>

Why would I switch from GPS to dead reckoning if I lost comms?


>
> Do you base your life off of something completely untested?
>

Are tested units failure-proof?


>
> Note, all of this
> I assume your talking about flying to a point 300 nm away where
> all nav systems (other than IRU's, VOR-DME FMS, etc. that large
> aircraft have) do not work at such long distance.
>

Where is this place where all nav systems (other than IRU's, VOR-DME FMS,
etc. that large aircraft have) do not work?

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll be at the NATCA meeting in May...will you?
>

Nope.


>
> I'm neither a controller nor a NATCA member, but I go anyway.
>

Why?

> The AIM is not regulatory and there is no requirement that limits usage to
> authorized units.

That is definitely incorrect. TSO-C129. GPS units
have to be certified to use under IFR. Otherwise
I could pick up a golf ball on a string and call
it an attitude indicator and say that meets the minimum
requirement for an AI under IFR flight. Or I can pick
up a sextant and call it a FMS and then file slant-whatever it is.

I spent literally 2 minute searching but couldn't find that TSO
but this is from the FAA and has many references saying
that GPS's are required to be certified for use under IFR.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8400/8400_vol4/4_001_02.pdf

I'll have to do some more research to find the exact regulation.

I do realize that the AIM is not regulatory but
GPS's definitely need to be certified otherwise some
GPS's (Garmin 430 which I"m most familiar with) wouldn't
need to be placarded as "VFR only" when the owner didn't
go through the IFR certification for the unit.

>>Do you base your life off of something completely untested?
> Are tested units failure-proof?

absolutely not but at least they have been tested and designed
to a standard for aviation use and no standard other than being
light, convenient and as cheap as possible for the hiking crowd.
What you are saying is my Garmin V designed for automobile
navigation is legal to fly under IFR even though it updates
about once every 4 seconds.


Another person wrote:
>My sextant isn't authorized either. Doesn't mean I can't use it to
>navigate under IFR.

incorrect unless there is a TSO for it.

>and just what is "situational awareness" anyway?

Well navigation is being able to follow a vector
(speed and in 3D). The situational awareness is what is happening
elsewise such as are mountains nearby, how high above the ground
you are, weather, etc. the both are helpful to know of course but are
independent. You can navigate by being at the right position all day
long without knowing what the heck is going on around you.

Lastly, I have to admit I'm far from an expert. In fact
my IFR checkride is in 2 weeks. But this stuff is almost a given.


Gerald Sylvester

"G. Sylvester" wrote:
> Lastly, I have to admit I'm far from an expert.

That is well established.

> In fact my IFR checkride is in 2 weeks.

Good luck.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'll be at the NATCA meeting in May...will you?
> >
>
> Nope.
>
>
> >
> > I'm neither a controller nor a NATCA member, but I go anyway.
> >
>
> Why?
>

Because it isn't just a NATCA meeting...

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Because it isn't just a NATCA meeting...
>

Odd, then, that that's what it's called.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:49:13 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
> wrote:

>> The AIM is not regulatory and there is no requirement that limits usage to
>> authorized units.
>
>That is definitely incorrect. TSO-C129. GPS units
>have to be certified to use under IFR. Otherwise
>I could pick up a golf ball on a string and call

I use my 295 on a yoke mount to legally fly en route IFR regularly.

Well, not all that regularly the past year, but It's still legal as I
have the equipment required for the routes being flown even if I were
out of RADAR contact.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

wrote:

>
> You don't become "illegal" (whatever that is) just because TRACON's
> radar goes down, or you enter a dead zone, or descend to an altitude
> where radar can't pick you up.

It's not that you become illegal. If radar goes down or is for some
reason not available then direct may not be authorized because in some
situations radar is required.

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> That is definitely incorrect. TSO-C129. GPS units
> have to be certified to use under IFR. Otherwise
> I could pick up a golf ball on a string and call
> it an attitude indicator and say that meets the minimum
> requirement for an AI under IFR flight. Or I can pick
> up a sextant and call it a FMS and then file slant-whatever it is.
>
> I spent literally 2 minute searching but couldn't find that TSO
> but this is from the FAA and has many references saying
> that GPS's are required to be certified for use under IFR.
>
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8400/8400_vol4/4_001_02.pdf
>
> I'll have to do some more research to find the exact regulation.
>

TSO C-129a is available online at: http://makeashorterlink.com/?A238150FA

TSOs are not regulations, they are Technical Standard Orders. TSOs are not
binding unless there is an FAR that requires the TSO to be complied with, so
says FAR 21.601. There are TSOs in existence that cover the "approval" of a
great many things, but you don't have to use "approved" equipment in any
operation unless required to do so by the FARs. What FAR requires
compliance with TSO-C129a?



PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

Subpart O--Technical Standard Order Authorizations

Sec. 21.601 Applicability.

[snip]

(b) For the purpose of this subpart--

[snip]


(4) An article manufactured under a TSO authorization, an FAA letter of
acceptance as described in §21.603(b), or an appliance manufactured under a
letter of TSO design approval described in §21.617 is an approved article or
appliance for the purpose of meeting the regulations of this chapter that
require the article to be approved.



>
> I do realize that the AIM is not regulatory but
> GPS's definitely need to be certified otherwise some
> GPS's (Garmin 430 which I"m most familiar with) wouldn't
> need to be placarded as "VFR only" when the owner didn't
> go through the IFR certification for the unit.
>

If the avionics shop that installs a GPS lacking IFR certification adheres
to AC 20-138 it will affix a placard stating "GPS limited to VFR use only".
Use of a GPS with such a placard during IFR operations, even on a cloudless
day with no restrictions to visibility, would be a violation of FAR 91.9(a).
But a handheld GPS is not installed equipment.


>
> absolutely not but at least they have been tested and designed
> to a standard for aviation use and no standard other than being
> light, convenient and as cheap as possible for the hiking crowd.
> What you are saying is my Garmin V designed for automobile
> navigation is legal to fly under IFR even though it updates
> about once every 4 seconds.
>

Actually, I'm just saying that which is not prohibited is legal and there's
no prohibition against use of a handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight.


>
> Another person wrote:
> >My sextant isn't authorized either. Doesn't mean I can't use it to
> >navigate under IFR.
>
> incorrect unless there is a TSO for it.
>

Please cite the regulation requiring the unit be TSO'd.

wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> What I am saying is that the radar might be unavailable for any number
> of reasons AFTER the authorization to proceed direct is given.
>
> In which case there is no reason to do anything different - just
> continue to proceed direct.

The first you know of a radar problem will be when you get your new
nonradar routing.

>
> What some people don't seem to get is that the regs require that
> certain equipment be on board for IFR flight, , and once that is
> satisfied, it doesn't prevent your using other equipment that might be
> on board, even if it isn't "authorized". (handheld GPS, LORAN,
> sextant, RadioShack stopwatch, handheld Tates compass, ham sandwich,
> you name it)
>
> Approved GPS is required for GPS operations. "Proceed direct" is not
> a GPS operation.

It might be. I am in the camp that knows that VFR GPS's, installed or
otherwise, are not legal for IFR for navigating on a direct course. You
are not legal asking for or accepting "cleared direct" when you are /A.
Nor is the controller legal in giving such a clearance.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> It might be. I am in the camp that knows that VFR GPS's, installed or
> otherwise, are not legal for IFR for navigating on a direct course.
>

What regulation is violated by use of a handheld GPS for navigating on a
direct course?


>
> You are not legal asking for or accepting "cleared direct" when you are
> /A.

What regulation is violated by asking for or accepting "cleared direct" when
you are /A?


>
> Nor is the controller legal in giving such a clearance.
>

What paragraph of FAAO 7110.65 would be violated if a controller issued such
a clearance?

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> I use my 295 on a yoke mount to legally fly en route IFR regularly.
>
> Well, not all that regularly the past year, but It's still legal as I
> have the equipment required for the routes being flown even if I were
> out of RADAR contact.
>

What equipment is required for the routes you're flying even if you're out
of RADAR contact?

Newps > wrote in message >...
>
> The only way ATC notices a 2 degree error is if where you are supposed
> to be going happens to follow an airway.
>


No, a controller can also compare the track to the route readout.

"Newps" wrote:
> You are not legal asking for or accepting "cleared direct"
> when you are /A. Nor is the controller legal in giving such a
> clearance.

Horse hockey.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:31:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I realize that, but the question was how far out of the way do you have to
>> be.. I guess it's entirely clear of the ORD bravo, in that case.
>>
>
>No, you have to be entirely clear of Chicago approach control delegated
>airspace. That's considerably larger than the Class B airspace.

I once flew IFR to OSH around the South end of Lake Michigan.
As you well know they sent me what seemed like half way to Kentucky to
stay well clear of ORD's airspace, climb corrodors, and preferred
routes in and out.

Although, looking at a map shows the distance to OSH from Midland
(3BS) to be about the same whether you go around the North or South
end of the lake (possibly a tad shorter around to the South) it will
work out to be far longer going South if you are IFR.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

<snip>

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> I once flew IFR to OSH around the South end of Lake Michigan.
> As you well know they sent me what seemed like half way to Kentucky to
> stay well clear of ORD's airspace, climb corrodors, and preferred
> routes in and out.
>
> Although, looking at a map shows the distance to OSH from Midland
> (3BS) to be about the same whether you go around the North or South
> end of the lake (possibly a tad shorter around to the South) it will
> work out to be far longer going South if you are IFR.
>

Unless you plan a stop within Chicago approach control airspace. Then
you're no longer a thruflight, you're an arrival and a departure. But then
you may be routed over a bit more water than you'd like.

Exactly. Going to Midway the first time IFR I ended up over the lake
much farther out than I liked. Next time I went down to the same area I
put "no over-water routing please" in my remarks, which worked - I was
routed around to the west instead. A bit longer, but I'd prefer that.

My CFII told me this little story. A colleage of his (another CFII) was
doing practice approaches VFR with MKE approach. At one point he told
them he was several miles out over the lake and he'd like a turn. He
was told he'd have one shortly. Another few minutes and another few
miles and he squawks 7700. "What's your emergency?" "I'm over the lake
in a piston single." He got his turn.


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I once flew IFR to OSH around the South end of Lake Michigan.
>>As you well know they sent me what seemed like half way to Kentucky to
>>stay well clear of ORD's airspace, climb corrodors, and preferred
>>routes in and out.
>>
>>Although, looking at a map shows the distance to OSH from Midland
>>(3BS) to be about the same whether you go around the North or South
>>end of the lake (possibly a tad shorter around to the South) it will
>>work out to be far longer going South if you are IFR.
>>
>
>
> Unless you plan a stop within Chicago approach control airspace. Then
> you're no longer a thruflight, you're an arrival and a departure. But then
> you may be routed over a bit more water than you'd like.
>
>

Newps > wrote in news:r66dnfOMiNj6zPTfRVn-
:

> It might be. I am in the camp that knows that VFR GPS's, installed or
> otherwise, are not legal for IFR for navigating on a direct course. You
> are not legal asking for or accepting "cleared direct" when you are /A.
> Nor is the controller legal in giving such a clearance.

Cleared direct is certainly legal without a GPS if you are asking for
clearance direct to an intersection and you are on one of the legs...

There was a discussion that I was involved in some time ago (maybe almost a
year ago) that defined how one could even navigate direct to an
intersection off-airway with 2 VORs (or, more complexibly by flipping 1
VOR). Admittedly, since I fly in a flight club that has all IFR-approved
GPS units, I never learned the technique. But there is no legal restriction
in requesting or accepting a clearance that you personally can't handle, so
long as you have the proper equipment to be able perform the navigation.

Is it a bad idea? Maybe. But is it illegal? I don't believe so.

Paul Folbrecht > wrote in
:

> Anyway, on to my question. A couple times now, when I've been
> navigating direct, either to a fix or airport identifiable by VORs or
> one that isn't (such as an uncontrolled field with no navaid), I've
> been asked to "verify direct XXX" when I'm off course by a quite small
> amount - no more than 10 degrees. Or, perhaps, I've gotten off course
> a bit and have a larger heading correction (20-25 degrees) in to get
> back on track, momentarily. I've never had a controller sound
> annoyed, but it does concern me a bit that they see fit to more or
> less ask "Are you sure you know where you're going"??

Was it the same controller who gave you the clearance?

How far off course were you with respect to miles, not degrees?

Especially during controller changes and/or handoffs, controllers may
not always have clearly documented the last clearance they gave you. The
next controller confirms this either by asking you to verify, or giving
you the clearance again. I've had this happen to me numerous times.

Generally speaking, though, I have found that a "correction" will only
be made if you are off by more than a couple of miles and don't seem to
be correcting, or if your error threatens to cause separation issues
(although this is more common with altitude busts than heading busts).

I look at it as a good thing, not a bad one. One time when flying IFR
in IMC I managed to miss a waypoint on an airway. As I flew off the
"real" airway I was asked to verify I was on the airway. When I
confirmed they indicated that I looked like I was direct to the next
waypoint (I think it was RBV or SAX VOR) and not on the airway. When I
realized the error and fessed up, they cleared me direct to where I was
going anyway - presumably no one else was around, and it was only a few
degrees different. But had there been other traffic in the area, and had
they not corrected me (ie: RADAR down or what not), it could have led to
bad things...

Accidents happen, people are only human and do make mistakes. That's why
ATC is not annoyed to help you. They're there to help you. They will get
annoyed if they have to correct you frequently (READ: NY TRACON if it's
more than once, or if they just corrected someone else before you). But
everyone gets an occassional correction - I've even heard it happen to
Heavies!

:)

wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:21:18 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>
>>There was a discussion that I was involved in some time ago (maybe
>>almost a year ago) that defined how one could even navigate direct to
>>an intersection off-airway with 2 VORs (or, more complexibly by
>>flipping 1 VOR).
>
>
> I don't believe this is possible.
>
> The best you can do is narrow the course down to the choice of several
> hedings, but not just one.
>
>
>
>

I'll have to hunt it down. To be honest, I didn't give it much thought,
because any time I fly IFR without an IFR approved GPS, I carry a handheld,
but file /A and DON'T indicate VFR GPS in the comments. I follow the
Airways like a good boy, and use the GPS just as a double-check on my VOR
tracking. :)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Because it isn't just a NATCA meeting...
> >
>
> Odd, then, that that's what it's called.
>
>

LOL, is not.... :-P

Chip, ZTL

Dan Luke wrote:
> "G. Sylvester" wrote:
>>Lastly, I have to admit I'm far from an expert.
> That is well established.

at least I'm humble.

Now I think I understand what you guys are doing. For
an intersection defined by 2 VOR's within receiving range
of the VOR for your current position, you would tune-ident-twist
for each radial defining the intersection. fly to it and
have the needles center. that is your intersection. If
you have a TSO-C129 GPS, you can tell it to go to that
intersection and you are good to go. Nice and easy. If
you have a handheld, then you tell it to go but you still
must use the VOR's as your GPS database could be 12 years
old. Basically you are using the handheld to just help
you out to get to the point. Your VOR's are your primary
means of defining that that intersection though. That
is pretty logical and normal as if you didn't have a handheld.

Now if the intersection is 500 nm away and out of VOR reception,
then the handheld is your primary means and only means of navigation.
The FAA might very well say you are legal but reckless. You can
say you monitored VOR's along the way but I'd have a hard time
seeing the FAA not seeing you as reckless without an TSO'd GPS,
INS, Loran, etc. But I'm not the judge. Do as you see fit
and hopefully you never have to sit at the end of a table
with men in black suits and dark sunglasses.

BTW, I asked the DPE I'm using for my checkride about this. He said
he would have failed me if I used a non-TSO'd GPS for IFR operations.
He's not a court of law though.

Cheers,

Gerald Sylvester

G. Sylvester wrote:

>
> Now if the intersection is 500 nm away and out of VOR reception,
> then the handheld is your primary means and only means of navigation.
> The FAA might very well say you are legal

No, they wouldn't say that.


but reckless.

Can't see how unless you somehow manage to wreck the plane because of
your handheld.


>
> BTW, I asked the DPE I'm using for my checkride about this. He said
> he would have failed me if I used a non-TSO'd GPS for IFR operations.
> He's not a court of law though.

He is correct.

wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:21:18 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>
>
>>There was a discussion that I was involved in some time ago (maybe almost a
>>year ago) that defined how one could even navigate direct to an
>>intersection off-airway with 2 VORs (or, more complexibly by flipping 1
>>VOR).
>
>
>
> I don't believe this is possible.
>
> The best you can do is narrow the course down to the choice of several
> hedings, but not just one.

I'm not following how it's not possible to calculate the heading unambiguously.
Two VORs give you two lines-of-position. You are where the LOPs intersect. If
your location is known unambiguously, and the location of the target
intersection is known unambiguously, there is one and only one direct route.

Not that you'd do it this way, but just to demonstrate that it's possible in
principle, do the following mind experiment: On your chart on your lapboard,
draw the LOPs from the VORs and mark your position. Draw a line from your
position to the desired intersection. Use your protractor to determine the
course. Repeat as required.


Dave

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> at least I'm humble.
>
> Now I think I understand what you guys are doing. For
> an intersection defined by 2 VOR's within receiving range
> of the VOR for your current position, you would tune-ident-twist
> for each radial defining the intersection. fly to it and
> have the needles center. that is your intersection. If
> you have a TSO-C129 GPS, you can tell it to go to that
> intersection and you are good to go. Nice and easy. If
> you have a handheld, then you tell it to go but you still
> must use the VOR's as your GPS database could be 12 years
> old. Basically you are using the handheld to just help
> you out to get to the point. Your VOR's are your primary
> means of defining that that intersection though. That
> is pretty logical and normal as if you didn't have a handheld.
>
> Now if the intersection is 500 nm away and out of VOR reception,
> then the handheld is your primary means and only means of navigation.
> The FAA might very well say you are legal but reckless. You can
> say you monitored VOR's along the way but I'd have a hard time
> seeing the FAA not seeing you as reckless without an TSO'd GPS,
> INS, Loran, etc. But I'm not the judge. Do as you see fit
> and hopefully you never have to sit at the end of a table
> with men in black suits and dark sunglasses.
>

Being reckless isn't enough, at least not according to the regulation. FAR
91.13(a) states; "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or
reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." Whose
life or property is endangered by the use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute
operations?

wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:02:18 -0400, Dave Butler > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:21:18 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There was a discussion that I was involved in some time ago (maybe almost a
>>>>year ago) that defined how one could even navigate direct to an
>>>>intersection off-airway with 2 VORs (or, more complexibly by flipping 1
>>>>VOR).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't believe this is possible.
>>>
>>>The best you can do is narrow the course down to the choice of several
>>>hedings, but not just one.
>>
>>I'm not following how it's not possible to calculate the heading unambiguously.
>>Two VORs give you two lines-of-position. You are where the LOPs intersect. If
>>your location is known unambiguously, and the location of the target
>>intersection is known unambiguously, there is one and only one direct route.
>
>
> True. I was referring to a method that does not require a chart - use
> of VOR's only.

At risk of being annoyingly persistent: what is that method that does not
require a chart and narrows the course down to a choice of several headings?

Dave

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> LOL, is not.... :-P
>

It isn't? My memory must be failing then, I would have sworn Bob Gardner
asked if I'd be at the NATCA meeting in May.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > LOL, is not.... :-P
> >
>
> It isn't? My memory must be failing then, I would have sworn Bob Gardner
> asked if I'd be at the NATCA meeting in May.
>
>

He did...

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> He did...
>

Yeah, I was pretty sure he had.

wrote:
> Now if he fails everyone for using a non-TSO'd stopwatch to navigate
> with, he will get the consistency award.

Dear Mr. Casio -
I am taking my IFR checkride in two weeks. Can you please
provide a certified TSO certificate for my G-Shock watch.

Thanks, dude.
Gerald Sylvester


:) :)