"Direct when able"

[Mitchell Gossman]

When instructed to fly a heading then "Direct XYZ when able", does a
controller expect a call when you are in fact able and will be turning
on course? Usually it is a trivial turn since the heading they give is
a good guess for direct course.

I've had conflicting experience. One time after being told the above,
I responded "I'm able to go direct now" and his ackowledgement had a
"who cares? Just do it" tone to it.

Just a few days ago, I made the 8 degree turn to navigate directly to
the VORTAC, and when the shift change at approach took place, the new
controller asked what my heading was, whether I was picking up the
VORTAC, and when I told him that I was navigating direct, he seemed
surprised.

Mitchell Gossman
St. Cloud, Minnesota

[Michael 182]

Don't know if there is a "right way", but I just fly the heading until I can
navigate direct. I've never updated the controller when I'm heading direct
to the waypoint unless he requested it.

Michael


"Mitchell Gossman" > wrote in message
m...
> When instructed to fly a heading then "Direct XYZ when able", does a
> controller expect a call when you are in fact able and will be turning
> on course?

[JerryK]

I usually tell them before I make the course change. It might be a few
minutes before I am able to go direct and letting the controller know helps
ensures everyone is on the same page.

jerry


"Mitchell Gossman" > wrote in message
m...
> When instructed to fly a heading then "Direct XYZ when able", does a
> controller expect a call when you are in fact able and will be turning
> on course? Usually it is a trivial turn since the heading they give is
> a good guess for direct course.
>
> I've had conflicting experience. One time after being told the above,
> I responded "I'm able to go direct now" and his ackowledgement had a
> "who cares? Just do it" tone to it.
>
> Just a few days ago, I made the 8 degree turn to navigate directly to
> the VORTAC, and when the shift change at approach took place, the new
> controller asked what my heading was, whether I was picking up the
> VORTAC, and when I told him that I was navigating direct, he seemed
> surprised.
>
> Mitchell Gossman
> St. Cloud, Minnesota

[[email protected]]

Chip Jones wrote:

> No. When ATC says "Direct XYZ when able", the unsaid part of the message is
> that they have deconflicted you from traffic between you and XYZ. With no
> conflict, they don't care if you are a few degress left or right of XYZ
> until you find it. They know that you will be turning a bit (depending on
> how good the vector is) as you receive the station. The "when able"
> phraseology authorizes the turn.
>

That is SO well stated. Too bad, all the FAAs can't get together and put gems
like that in a guidance handbook.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>Chip Jones wrote:
>> No. When ATC says "Direct XYZ when able", the unsaid part of the message is
>> that they have deconflicted you from traffic between you and XYZ. With no
>That is SO well stated. Too bad, all the FAAs can't get together and put gems
>like that in a guidance handbook.

It was clear, direct, understandable and based on the real world. So the
FAA would have no interest in publishing anything like it.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
It's possible there had been armed autonomous droids at some point in
the past, and one can almost imagine past issues of that galaxy's Risks
Digest. -- Anthony DeBoer, on SW: TPM

[Allan9]

VOR/VORTAC/TACAN NAVAID's
Normal Usable Altitudes and Radius Distances Class
Altitude
Distance
(miles)

T
12,000 and below
25

L
Below 18,000
40

H
Below 14,500
40

H
14,500 - 17,999
100

H
18,000 - FL 450
130

H
Above FL 450
100


Altitude and distance limitations need not be applied when any of the
following conditions are met:

a. Routing is initiated by ATC or requested by the pilot and the following
is provided:

1. Radar monitoring.

2. As necessary, course guidance unless the aircraft is /E, /F, /G, or
/R equipped.

NOTE-
1. Para 4-4-1, Route Use, requires radar monitoring be provided at FL
450 and below to aircraft on random (impromptu) RNAV routes.
Para 5-5-1, Application, requires radar separation be provided for these
routes at FL 450 and below.

2. When a clearance is issued beyond the altitude and/or distance
limitations of a NAVAID, in addition to being responsible for maintaining
separation from other aircraft and airspace, the controller is responsible
for providing aircraft with information and advice related to significant
deviations from the expected flight path.

[Bob Gardner]

The FAA did not write the new instrument handbook. I wrote two chapters
myself. What the FAA did, however, was to edit the text severely and force
it to fit into some of their preconceived notions. I lost some good stuff
during the editing process.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> > In a previous article, said:
> > >Chip Jones wrote:
> > >> No. When ATC says "Direct XYZ when able", the unsaid part of the
message is
> > >> that they have deconflicted you from traffic between you and XYZ.
With no
> > >That is SO well stated. Too bad, all the FAAs can't get together and
put gems
> > >like that in a guidance handbook.
> >
> > It was clear, direct, understandable and based on the real world. So
the
> > FAA would have no interest in publishing anything like it.
> >
> >
>
> No doubt you're right on that one. When they wrote the current IFR
Handbook they
> ended up with some pretty big errors because the left hand didn't know
what the
> right hand was doing.
>

[Bob Gardner]

I tell my readers (and anyone else who will listen), that "when able" also
means "when you can proceed without hitting anything." Simply getting a good
needle is not the whole story. ATC has no responsibility for keeping you out
of the trees until you reach their MIA.

Bob Gardner

"Mitchell Gossman" > wrote in message
m...
> When instructed to fly a heading then "Direct XYZ when able", does a
> controller expect a call when you are in fact able and will be turning
> on course? Usually it is a trivial turn since the heading they give is
> a good guess for direct course.
>
> I've had conflicting experience. One time after being told the above,
> I responded "I'm able to go direct now" and his ackowledgement had a
> "who cares? Just do it" tone to it.
>
> Just a few days ago, I made the 8 degree turn to navigate directly to
> the VORTAC, and when the shift change at approach took place, the new
> controller asked what my heading was, whether I was picking up the
> VORTAC, and when I told him that I was navigating direct, he seemed
> surprised.
>
> Mitchell Gossman
> St. Cloud, Minnesota

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Bob Gardner" > said:
>I tell my readers (and anyone else who will listen), that "when able" also
>means "when you can proceed without hitting anything." Simply getting a good
>needle is not the whole story. ATC has no responsibility for keeping you out
>of the trees until you reach their MIA.

The other day I was north of Syracuse and I asked for direct Rochester
(instead of flying down to Syracuse and following V2). The controller
cleared me "direct when able", and when the GPS showed that I would just
barely miss the restricted area (R-5203?), I turned. But evidently that
was too close for her, because a few minutes later she turned me 45
degrees off my course for a few minutes before she let me turn back.

I wonder if I should have said something to her about seeing the
restricted area on my GPS?

--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
Simulated editor war, conducted by seasoned professionals in a controlled
environment. Don't try this at home.
-- Christian Bauernfeind

[David Megginson]

(Paul Tomblin) writes:

> The other day I was north of Syracuse and I asked for direct
> Rochester (instead of flying down to Syracuse and following V2).
> The controller cleared me "direct when able", and when the GPS
> showed that I would just barely miss the restricted area (R-5203?),
> I turned. But evidently that was too close for her, because a few
> minutes later she turned me 45 degrees off my course for a few
> minutes before she let me turn back.
>
> I wonder if I should have said something to her about seeing the
> restricted area on my GPS?

I wonder if smaller, slower planes sometimes catch a controller off
guard. Maybe they get too used to leading every turn by a few miles
for the big boys, and then once in a while they slip up and forget to
allow for the fact that a Cherokee or Skyhawk can turn to a new
heading in less than a quarter mile. It would be an understandable
mistake, but an easy one to correct.


All the best,


David

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:y2e4b.232280$cF.75464@rwcrnsc53...
>
> ATC has no responsibility for keeping you out of the trees until you reach
their MIA.
>

They do if they issue vectors while you're below the minimum altitude.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> The other day I was north of Syracuse and I asked for direct Rochester
> (instead of flying down to Syracuse and following V2). The controller
> cleared me "direct when able", and when the GPS showed that I would just
> barely miss the restricted area (R-5203?), I turned. But evidently that
> was too close for her, because a few minutes later she turned me 45
> degrees off my course for a few minutes before she let me turn back.
>
> I wonder if I should have said something to her about seeing the
> restricted area on my GPS?
>

The book is a bit vague on that.

FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control

Chapter 9. Special Flights

Section 4. Special Use and ATC Assigned Airspace

9-4-2. SEPARATION MINIMA

Unless clearance of nonparticipating aircraft in/through/adjacent to a
Prohibited/Restricted/Warning Area/MOA/ATCAA is provided for in a Letter of
Agreement (LOA) or Letter of Procedure (LOP), separate nonparticipating
aircraft from active special use airspace by the following minima:

a. Assign an altitude consistent with para 4-5-2, Flight Direction, and
4-5-3, Exceptions, which is at least 500 feet (above FL 290-1000 feet)
above/below the upper/lower limit of the Prohibited/Restricted/Warning
Area/MOA/ATCAA.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7210.3, Prohibited/Restricted Areas, Para 2-1-16.

b. Provide radar separation of 3 miles (En route Stage A/DARC, FL 600 and
above - 6 miles) from the special use airspace peripheral boundary.

c. Clear aircraft on airways or routes whose widths or protected airspace
do not overlap the peripheral boundary.

d. Exception. Some Prohibited/Restricted/Warning Areas are established for
security reasons or to contain hazardous activities not involving aircraft
operations. Where facility management has identified these areas as outlined
in FAAO 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration, vector aircraft to
remain clear of the peripheral boundary.

NOTE-
Nonparticipating aircraft refers to those aircraft for which you have
separation responsibility and which have not been authorized by the using
agency to operate in/through the special use airspace or ATCAA in question.


Clearly, if the controller is vectoring you around SUA then 3 miles is the
minimum. If you're on an airway that clears the SUA then you're deemed to
be clear of the SUA without regard to how close you actually are to the SUA
boundary. But if you're proceeding via your own navigation direct to a fix
is just being clear of the SUA boundary good enough?

[No Spam]

> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:y2e4b.232280$cF.75464@rwcrnsc53...
>>
>> ATC has no responsibility for keeping you out of the trees until you reach
> their MIA.
>>
>
> They do if they issue vectors while you're below the minimum altitude.
>
>

They won't issue you vectors below their minimum vectoring altitude. To do
so would be professional suicide.

No Spam

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"No Spam" > wrote in message
...
>
> They won't issue you vectors below their minimum vectoring altitude. To do
> so would be professional suicide.
>

It's done regularly.


FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control

Chapter 5. Radar

Section 6. Vectoring

5-6-3. VECTORS BELOW MINIMUM ALTITUDE

Except in en route automated environments in areas where more than 3 miles
separation minima is required, you may vector a departing IFR aircraft, or
one executing a missed approach, within 40 miles of the antenna and before
it reaches the minimum altitude for IFR operations if separation from
prominent obstructions shown on the radar scope is applied in accordance
with the following:

a. If the flight path is 3 miles or more from the obstruction and the
aircraft is climbing to an altitude at least 1,000 feet above the
obstruction, vector the aircraft to maintain at least 3 miles separation
from the obstruction until the aircraft reports leaving an altitude above
the obstruction.

b. If the flight path is less than 3 miles from the obstruction, and the
aircraft is climbing to an altitude at least 1,000 feet above the
obstruction, vector the aircraft to increase lateral separation from the
obstruction until the 3 mile minimum is achieved or until the aircraft
reports leaving an altitude above the obstruction.

c. At those locations where diverse vector areas (DVA) have been
established, terminal radar facilities may vector aircraft below the MVA/MIA
within those areas and along those routes described in facility directives.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7210.3, Establishing Diverse Vector Area/s (DVA), Para 3-9-5.

[Robert Henry]

As I found it recently by experience, even if you depart a towered airport
in other than Class E or G airspace.

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:y2e4b.232280$cF.75464@rwcrnsc53...
> ATC has no responsibility for keeping you out
> of the trees until you reach their MIA.
>
> Bob Gardner

[Richard Kaplan]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
et...
> The FAA did not write the new instrument handbook. I wrote two chapters

> myself. What the FAA did, however, was to edit the text severely and force
> it to fit into some of their preconceived notions. I lost some good stuff
> during the editing process


Interesting... could you give some examples? What motivated their fixed
preconceptions?

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Newps]

No Spam wrote:

> They won't issue you vectors below their minimum vectoring altitude. To do
> so would be professional suicide.

Every vector you get with your takeoff clearance is a vector below the MVA.

[Joseph D. Farrell]

probably only if you had filed /I or /G . . .then you are telling her
you have an IFR capable GPS =

she was probably adding a couple of miles for the 'husband and kids.'

Joe in CT


On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:18:50 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, "Bob Gardner" > said:
>>I tell my readers (and anyone else who will listen), that "when able" also
>>means "when you can proceed without hitting anything." Simply getting a good
>>needle is not the whole story. ATC has no responsibility for keeping you out
>>of the trees until you reach their MIA.
>
>The other day I was north of Syracuse and I asked for direct Rochester
>(instead of flying down to Syracuse and following V2). The controller
>cleared me "direct when able", and when the GPS showed that I would just
>barely miss the restricted area (R-5203?), I turned. But evidently that
>was too close for her, because a few minutes later she turned me 45
>degrees off my course for a few minutes before she let me turn back.
>
>I wonder if I should have said something to her about seeing the
>restricted area on my GPS?

[Hankal]

>probably only if you had filed /I or /G . . .then you are telling her
>you have an IFR capable GPS =
>

I just did a 1500 mile XC. Filing 172/U
I received at least 4 transmissons. Direct to Savana, Columbia St. Augustine.
Controller never queried if able.
I do have a VFR GPS with me, which helps me.
Hank N1441P