Are handheld GPSes becoming a defacto primary nav source?

[Paul Tomblin]

This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
enough to get a signal.

They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
go direct East Texas".

It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
until we pick up the VOR.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a freshly-
charged Electric Eel and chances are he won't bother you for anything
ever again. -- Tanuki

[[email protected]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
> couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
> one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
> One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
> less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
> and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
> on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
> enough to get a signal.

The 2,000' terrain is some 29 miles SE of the airport, thus well below a 40:1
departure slope. That is why the obstacle DP for the airport doesn't have a
route obstacle DP. Having said that, you are well-advised to follow the
takeoff minimum restrictions noted for some runways at the airport, if you
used one of those runways for departure.

>
>
> They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
> go direct East Texas".

Thus, your survival may depend upn following any IFR takeoff miniums or
obstacle DP instructions.

>
>
> It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
> we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
> legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
> until we pick up the VOR.
>
> As to taking the routing direct to a nav aid you cannot receive, if you're
> not filed /G, you're technically obligated to refuse the clearance. ATC
> issuance of such a clearance does not make use of a handheld legal. As a
> practical matter, does it matter, provided you adhere to any obstcle
> departure information? Probably not.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
>> less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
>> and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
>> on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
>> enough to get a signal.
>
>The 2,000' terrain is some 29 miles SE of the airport, thus well below a 40:1
>departure slope. That is why the obstacle DP for the airport doesn't have a
>route obstacle DP. Having said that, you are well-advised to follow the

I wasn't tallking about obstacle clearance, I was talking about being
able to recieve a navigation signal from a VOR that was hidden behind
hills.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
I find that anthropomorphism really doesn't help me deal with hardware all
that much, because it lends a certain attitude of disdain to what would
otherwise be a mere malfunction. -- Carl Jacobs

[[email protected]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, said:
> >Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>
> I wasn't tallking about obstacle clearance, I was talking about being
> able to recieve a navigation signal from a VOR that was hidden behind
> hills.
>

That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles from ROC,
so you couldn't receive it on departure, hills or not.

[Mike Adams]

I had two similar recent experiences on this year's trip to Oshkosh that made
me think the same thing. With a new instrument rating, I was trying to file on
a few of the legs just for the experience. On the leg from LVS to OJC, I
checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately cleared direct
EMP. Now this is 450 NM, and I had filed /A, so they were obviously assuming I
had some other navigation capability. (We did.)

Then on the return trip, it happened again. It was overcast at OSH, and we
departed IFR. After breaking out at 3500 ft, and contacting Chicago center,
they cleared us direct to Mason City (MCW). This is over 200 NM. We said
unable, and they said fly 250 heading until able. Well, as we got closer to
MCW, we can't receive it, and finally I asked center, and they said "oh, it's
been NOTAM'ed for several months".

We had a handheld GPS, and the VFR Loran was driving the HSI, so navigation
wasn't a problem, but I was expecting some actual practice following the
airways. This worked out OK on the first leg, after we said "unable" they
cleared us for our original route. But I agree with you - they seem to assume
everyone has GPS/RNAV capability.

Mike

In article >, (Paul Tomblin)
wrote:
>This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
>couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
>one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
>One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
>less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
>and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
>on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
>enough to get a signal.
>
>They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
>go direct East Texas".
>
>It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
>we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
>legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
>until we pick up the VOR.
>
>

[David Megginson]

writes:

> That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78
> miles from ROC, so you couldn't receive it on departure, hills or
> not.

Right -- he should be able to start picking it up around 4000 ft AGL
at that distance, if the hills don't interfere.


All the best,


David

[[email protected]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, said:
> >Paul Tomblin wrote:
> >> In a previous article, said:
> >> >Paul Tomblin wrote:
> >> I wasn't tallking about obstacle clearance, I was talking about being
> >> able to recieve a navigation signal from a VOR that was hidden behind
> >> hills.
> >>
> >
> >That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles
>
> Since the entire article was about using GPSes instead of VORs, I don't
> see *how* you could get the impression that it had anything to do with
> obstacle clearance. But to each his own.

Why the hostility?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> >That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles
>> Since the entire article was about using GPSes instead of VORs, I don't
>> see *how* you could get the impression that it had anything to do with
>> obstacle clearance. But to each his own.
>
>Why the hostility?

Not hostility, just confusion. I didn't see any way you could have read
it the way you did, so I was wondering if there was something there in the
way I worded it that I missed.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
I didn't need to sabotage anything. Not being around to say "No that
won't work" or "you can't do it that way" is more than enough damage.
(Ego problem? It's not a problem.) -- Graham Reed, on job endings

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Why the hostility?
>

What hostility?

The AIM addresses the issue of flying direct when outside of NAVAID service
volume limits; see section 5-1-7, paragraphs c.4 and c.5. Also see
paragraph c.7 regarding obstacle clearance rsponsibility.

I raised this same issue with my flight instructor when taking IFR lessons.
He explained that although it's not permissable to FILE an IFR direct route
that requires GPS without having a certified unit, it's OK to request
"direct" if I have my hand-held and I'm in radar contact. So now I always
file a route that meets NAVAID requirements and request "direct" once
established on the filed route. I just let the controller know that "I have
GPS aboard" and my request has never been denied.


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
> couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
> one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
> One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
> less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
> and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
> on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
> enough to get a signal.
>
> They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
> go direct East Texas".
>
> It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
> we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
> legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
> until we pick up the VOR.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
> Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a freshly-
> charged Electric Eel and chances are he won't bother you for anything
> ever again. -- Tanuki

[Tom Pappano]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
> couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
> one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
> One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
> less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
> and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
> on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
> enough to get a signal.
>
> They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
> go direct East Texas".
>
> It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
> we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
> legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
> until we pick up the VOR.
>
>

I pretty much always file IFR /u or /a, and I've come to the conclusion
ATC does assume you have some sort of GPS or Loran available. I almost
always get some sort of "direct". I've only been asked once if I had
GPS available, on an IMC Angel Flight from Tulsa to Houston. Soon as I
was handed off to Fort Worth (about McAlester, OK) he inquired about
GPS, then cleared me direct HOU. Another fun part was the arrival.
We did a "best forward speed" intercept of the localizer at 8000, with
the approach flown at 160. On another trip into New Orleans, during a
STAR, I was given a direct to a fix that "shortcutted" part of the
procedure.

I've also wondered if ATC somtimes observes the "quality of your
performance" and then maybe helps/expects more accordingly.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

[Tom Pappano]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, said:
>
>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>>>>That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles
>>>
>>>Since the entire article was about using GPSes instead of VORs, I don't
>>>see *how* you could get the impression that it had anything to do with
>>>obstacle clearance. But to each his own.
>>
>>Why the hostility?
>
>
> Not hostility, just confusion. I didn't see any way you could have read
> it the way you did, so I was wondering if there was something there in the
> way I worded it that I missed.
>
>
I thought your post was crystal clear.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

[[email protected]]

David Megginson wrote:

> writes:
>
> > That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78
> > miles from ROC, so you couldn't receive it on departure, hills or
> > not.
>
> Right -- he should be able to start picking it up around 4000 ft AGL
> at that distance, if the hills don't interfere.
>
> All the best,
>
> David

At 4,000 feet, I doubt the hills would interfere. The VOR itself sits
at almost 1,700 feet and is likely not shadowed by the slightly higher
terrain between it and the airport.

[[email protected]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, said:
> >Paul Tomblin wrote:
> >> >That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles
> >> Since the entire article was about using GPSes instead of VORs, I don't
> >> see *how* you could get the impression that it had anything to do with
> >> obstacle clearance. But to each his own.
> >
> >Why the hostility?
>
> Not hostility, just confusion. I didn't see any way you could have read
> it the way you did, so I was wondering if there was something there in the
> way I worded it that I missed.

I guess I am confused, too. When ATC clears you to a *VOR* that is not
possible to receive, terrain nothwithstanding, it is all about a clearance to
Aa VOR, not a GPS waypoint, and whether a VFR handheld can be used to navigate
to the VOR as a waypoint rather than as a VOR.

The entire system is full of confusion about the use of RNAV. As to the
terrain, I read into it "they are sending me towards higher terrain without a
vector." Had you stated that your concerns about the terrain was blocking of
VOR signal I would have understood.

In any case, the entire article was about VOR and GPS. ;-)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Why the hostility?
> >
>
> What hostility?

Conflict is the mother of creation.

[hnelson]

I put "GPS" in the comment part of the flight plan and file /A. I have an
panel mount non-IFR GPS coupled to the autopilot.

Howard

[Mike Adams]

The first one was via the victor airways, the second one was VOR to VOR.

Details:
KLVS V190 DHT V234 EMP V10 DODSN KOJC
KOSH LNR UKN MCW FOD KSUX

Mike

In article >,
(Eric Wickberg) wrote:
>Mike, did you file airway routes on these flight plans, or direct?
>
>Eric

[Dan Thompson]

I believe your instructor was wrong. It is permissible to file an IFR plan
with a direct route, even if all you have to navigate direct with is a
handheld or even just a tuna sandwich. You are working harder than you have
to, filing an airways or VOR route then requesting direct later. It doesn't
hurt you any, but you are wasting your time.
> wrote in message
. ..
> The AIM addresses the issue of flying direct when outside of NAVAID
service
> volume limits; see section 5-1-7, paragraphs c.4 and c.5. Also see
> paragraph c.7 regarding obstacle clearance rsponsibility.
>
> I raised this same issue with my flight instructor when taking IFR
lessons.
> He explained that although it's not permissable to FILE an IFR direct
route
> that requires GPS without having a certified unit, it's OK to request
> "direct" if I have my hand-held and I'm in radar contact. So now I always
> file a route that meets NAVAID requirements and request "direct" once
> established on the filed route. I just let the controller know that "I
have
> GPS aboard" and my request has never been denied.
>
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
> > couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
> > one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the
signal.
> > One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I
was
> > less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between
me
> > and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched
"GOTO"
> > on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
> > enough to get a signal.
> >
> > They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say
"05X,
> > go direct East Texas".
> >
> > It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
> > we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far
as
> > legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
> > until we pick up the VOR.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
> > Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a freshly-
> > charged Electric Eel and chances are he won't bother you for anything
> > ever again. -- Tanuki
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

"hnelson" > wrote in message >...
> I put "GPS" in the comment part of the flight plan and file /A. I have an
> panel mount non-IFR GPS coupled to the autopilot.

I do the same and often get direct. However, FSS complains to no end when I do it.

-Robert

[Michael]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote
> It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
> we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
> legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
> until we pick up the VOR.

There are several separate issues at work here.

First off - there are no official, written rules as to what may be
used for enroute naviagation under IFR. As far as legalities go, you
are proceeding direct to the fix, as cleared, using a tuna sandwich,
tea leaves, handheld GPS, or whatever streamlined navigation technique
you prefer. Of course this is directly counter to the
(non-regulatory) AIM, so what we have in practice is a massive gray
area.

Second, the controller NEVER cares HOW you comply with your clearance,
merely that you DO comply with it. If he cleared you present position
direct to a fix, then as long as you proceed along the line between
that present position and the fix, he really couldn't care less how
you are doing it.

Third, you've nailed it. The handheld GPS has become a defacto
primary nav source. I don't know ANYONE who flies Part 91 IFR without
a GPS of some kind anymore, unless it's a training flight. Why would
you?

The fact is that a handheld GPS and a good set of batteries provide
the best possible protection against nav/electrical failure. That's
important when you have a non-redundant electrical system. The GPS
provides course guidance that's less affected by terrain than anything
you're likely to find in a GA aircraft. It's more accurate and
(unless we're talking about IFR-approved stuff that had to have the
user interface made FAA-compliant and thus defective) easier to use
than anything else in the airplane.

Controllers are not idiots - they've caught on. They realize that
virtually everyone can now go direct to any fix - and that means that
airplanes can be routed to bypass choke points like VOR's. Clearly
that improves safety. Just as clearly, insisting on following airways
because you lack 'approved' area nav is not in the interest of safety.

Michael

[Ray Andraka]

try putting "VFR GPS" instead. Same results, except I've never gotten a complaint from FSS.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> "hnelson" > wrote in message >...
> > I put "GPS" in the comment part of the flight plan and file /A. I have an
> > panel mount non-IFR GPS coupled to the autopilot.
>
> I do the same and often get direct. However, FSS complains to no end when I do it.
>
> -Robert

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[No Spam]

> This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
> couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
> one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
> One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
> less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
> and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
> on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
> enough to get a signal.
>
> They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
> go direct East Texas".
>
> It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
> we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
> legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
> until we pick up the VOR.
>

An excellent thread, Paul.

It frightens me, though, that we must share clouds with some of the
off-target thinkers I've read here...

No Spam

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Adams" > wrote in message
news:HwK4b.22908$S_.21808@fed1read01...
>
> I had two similar recent experiences on this year's trip to Oshkosh that
> made me think the same thing. With a new instrument rating, I was trying
> to file on a few of the legs just for the experience. On the leg from LVS
> to OJC, I checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately
> cleared direct EMP. Now this is 450 NM, and I had filed /A, so they
> were obviously assuming I had some other navigation capability. (We did.)
>

That's rather poor technique. Aircraft shouldn't be cleared direct to
distant fixes unless there's some indication the pilot is capable of
navigating to the fix.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>> to OJC, I checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately
>> cleared direct EMP. Now this is 450 NM, and I had filed /A, so they
>> were obviously assuming I had some other navigation capability. (We did.)
>>
>
>That's rather poor technique. Aircraft shouldn't be cleared direct to
>distant fixes unless there's some indication the pilot is capable of
>navigating to the fix.

Read the start of the thread. This started off with me being cleared
direct to a navaid that even if I was within its service volume, there
were actually hills higher than my current elevation and higher than the
VOR between me and it, so there is no way in hell I could have received
it.

--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
I read [.doc files] with "rm". All you lose is the microsoft-specific
font selections, the macro viruses and the luser babblings.
-- Gary "Wolf" Barnes

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
. ..
>
> I raised this same issue with my flight instructor when taking IFR
> lessons. He explained that although it's not permissable to FILE
> an IFR direct route that requires GPS without having a certified
> unit, it's OK to request "direct" if I have my hand-held and I'm in
> radar contact. So now I always file a route that meets NAVAID
> requirements and request "direct" once established on the filed
> route. I just let the controller know that "I have GPS aboard"
> and my request has never been denied.
>

Your instructor is wrong, there's nothing that prohibits filing an IFR
direct route regardless of the status of your nav equipment. Whether or not
the controller can clear you on such a route depends upon radar coverage,
but if he can clear you direct once you're airborne he can also clear you
direct when you're still on the ground.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I do the same and often get direct. However, FSS complains to no end when
> I do it.
>

What's their beef?

[jeff]

I have a Turbo Arrow III and use a handheld garmin 295 in it, if I am told to
go direct to a VOR , I intercept the outbound course if I cant pick up the VOR
they are wanting me to go to. So far, I have not been told to go to a VOR I
couldnt receive without vectors. I use my GPS only as a means of verifying I
am doing the right things and for situational awreness. I try to use the VOR's
as much as possible without relying on the GPS, I get better training that way
and I dont get in that bad habit of taking shortcuts.
There wasn't any vor's you could intercept to get to the VOR they were sending
you to?



Paul Tomblin wrote:

> This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
> couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
> one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
> One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
> less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
> and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
> on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
> enough to get a signal.
>
> They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
> go direct East Texas".
>
> It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
> we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
> legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
> until we pick up the VOR.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
> Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a freshly-
> charged Electric Eel and chances are he won't bother you for anything
> ever again. -- Tanuki

[jeff]

ok, but wasnt there navaids that you could use to get to the point you were
cleared to?
If I am told cleared to xxx VOR which is say, 200 nm miles away, I am assuming I
am cleared to there, so to get there, I will use the navaids available in my
area. So if you was cleared direct to EMP you would use
KLVS V190 DHT V234
then expect more at EMP or close to it.
thats how I would take it, unless told otherwise, If I had questions I would
ask.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
> >> to OJC, I checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately
> >> cleared direct EMP. Now this is 450 NM, and I had filed /A, so they
> >> were obviously assuming I had some other navigation capability. (We did.)
> >>
> >
> >That's rather poor technique. Aircraft shouldn't be cleared direct to
> >distant fixes unless there's some indication the pilot is capable of
> >navigating to the fix.
>
> Read the start of the thread. This started off with me being cleared
> direct to a navaid that even if I was within its service volume, there
> were actually hills higher than my current elevation and higher than the
> VOR between me and it, so there is no way in hell I could have received
> it.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
> I read [.doc files] with "rm". All you lose is the microsoft-specific
> font selections, the macro viruses and the luser babblings.
> -- Gary "Wolf" Barnes

[Craig Prouse]

"jeff" wrote:

> If I am told cleared to xxx VOR which is say, 200 nm miles away, I am assuming
> I
> am cleared to there, so to get there, I will use the navaids available in my
> area. So if you was cleared direct to EMP you would use
> KLVS V190 DHT V234
> then expect more at EMP or close to it.
> thats how I would take it, unless told otherwise, If I had questions I would
> ask.

Jeff, when you're cleared from your present position to a VOR, you're
cleared along the direct course to the VOR, period. You're not cleared to
develop your own route using other navaids or convenient airways of your
choice. That's why you need GPS or other RNAV equipment to fly such a
clearance. [Ref: 91.181 Course to be flown.]

[Ray Andraka]

Not if you are cleared direct. If cleared direct, you are expected to fly direct,
not via other navaids. If you can't comply, you always have the option of saying
"unable". Might help if you have an alternate plan to offer such as the other vOR
routing, or perhaps an approximate heading if you can figure that either from on
board equipment or from a chart.

jeff wrote:

> ok, but wasnt there navaids that you could use to get to the point you were
> cleared to?
> If I am told cleared to xxx VOR which is say, 200 nm miles away, I am assuming I
> am cleared to there, so to get there, I will use the navaids available in my
> area. So if you was cleared direct to EMP you would use
> KLVS V190 DHT V234
> then expect more at EMP or close to it.
> thats how I would take it, unless told otherwise, If I had questions I would
> ask.
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> > In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
> > >> to OJC, I checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately
> > >> cleared direct EMP. Now this is 450 NM, and I had filed /A, so they
> > >> were obviously assuming I had some other navigation capability. (We did.)
> > >>
> > >
> > >That's rather poor technique. Aircraft shouldn't be cleared direct to
> > >distant fixes unless there's some indication the pilot is capable of
> > >navigating to the fix.
> >
> > Read the start of the thread. This started off with me being cleared
> > direct to a navaid that even if I was within its service volume, there
> > were actually hills higher than my current elevation and higher than the
> > VOR between me and it, so there is no way in hell I could have received
> > it.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
> > I read [.doc files] with "rm". All you lose is the microsoft-specific
> > font selections, the macro viruses and the luser babblings.
> > -- Gary "Wolf" Barnes

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[David Megginson]

Ray Andraka > writes:

> Not if you are cleared direct. If cleared direct, you are expected
> to fly direct, not via other navaids. If you can't comply, you
> always have the option of saying "unable".

.... at which point ATC gives me a vector towards the VOR (so far, at
least).


All the best,


David

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"jeff" > wrote in message ...
>
> ok, but wasnt there navaids that you could use to get to the point you
were
> cleared to?
> If I am told cleared to xxx VOR which is say, 200 nm miles away, I am
assuming I
> am cleared to there, so to get there, I will use the navaids available in
my
> area. So if you was cleared direct to EMP you would use
> KLVS V190 DHT V234
> then expect more at EMP or close to it.
> thats how I would take it, unless told otherwise, If I had questions I
would
> ask.
>

Well, that's not "direct". "Direct" to a fix means a straight line from
your present position to the fix.

[jeff]

right, I know that, but unless you tell them you have a GPS or RNAV they shouldnt
clear you to a VOR 200 miles away. If the instructions were cleared as filed to xxx
VOR then you would go as filed, I think what would clarify everything would be to
know the exact wording that he was given. Its easy to confuse things if the exact
wording is not known. He said that he put /A on his flight plan, that would only
indicate that he had DME/transponder and not GPS or RNAV


Craig Prouse wrote:

> "jeff" wrote:
>
> > If I am told cleared to xxx VOR which is say, 200 nm miles away, I am assuming
> > I
> > am cleared to there, so to get there, I will use the navaids available in my
> > area. So if you was cleared direct to EMP you would use
> > KLVS V190 DHT V234
> > then expect more at EMP or close to it.
> > thats how I would take it, unless told otherwise, If I had questions I would
> > ask.
>
> Jeff, when you're cleared from your present position to a VOR, you're
> cleared along the direct course to the VOR, period. You're not cleared to
> develop your own route using other navaids or convenient airways of your
> choice. That's why you need GPS or other RNAV equipment to fly such a
> clearance. [Ref: 91.181 Course to be flown.]

[jeff]

ok so this was offered to you, it was not a clearence.
Somewhere, somehow, I thought I had read it was a clearence you received.

These posts sometimes get morphed into all kinds of different directions and
the answer never actually given if an answer is available.
I have not received any thing like that here, the other day flying out of
phoenix I got vectors all the way to drake then was told to intercept V105
then as filed. You were comming out of Oshkosh right? I am sure they had
their hands full and offered it to you hoping you had the ability to go
direct. I am pretty sure more then half the pilots nowdays use some type of
GPS also -- But I could be wrong :)



Paul Tomblin wrote:

> This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
> couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
> one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
> One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
> less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
> and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
> on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
> enough to get a signal.
>
> They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
> go direct East Texas".
>
> It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
> we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
> legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
> until we pick up the VOR.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
> Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a freshly-
> charged Electric Eel and chances are he won't bother you for anything
> ever again. -- Tanuki

[Mike Adams]

That was the whole point of my original post. If I'm over Las Vegas, NM, and
"Cleared Direct EMP" (Emporia, KS), which is some 400 nm away, they are
telling me to go directly there, not "cleared as filed" via LBL, etc., and
even though my flight plan was filed with a /A equipment suffix, they are
assuming I've got RNAV capability.

Mike

In article >, jeff > wrote:
>right, I know that, but unless you tell them you have a GPS or RNAV they
> shouldnt
>clear you to a VOR 200 miles away. If the instructions were cleared as filed to
> xxx
>VOR then you would go as filed, I think what would clarify everything would be
> to
>know the exact wording that he was given. Its easy to confuse things if the
> exact
>wording is not known. He said that he put /A on his flight plan, that would
> only
>indicate that he had DME/transponder and not GPS or RNAV
>
>
>Craig Prouse wrote:
>
>> "jeff" wrote:
>>
>> > If I am told cleared to xxx VOR which is say, 200 nm miles away, I am
> assuming
>> > I
>> > am cleared to there, so to get there, I will use the navaids available in
> my
>> > area. So if you was cleared direct to EMP you would use
>> > KLVS V190 DHT V234
>> > then expect more at EMP or close to it.
>> > thats how I would take it, unless told otherwise, If I had questions I
> would
>> > ask.
>>
>> Jeff, when you're cleared from your present position to a VOR, you're
>> cleared along the direct course to the VOR, period. You're not cleared to
>> develop your own route using other navaids or convenient airways of your
>> choice. That's why you need GPS or other RNAV equipment to fly such a
>> clearance. [Ref: 91.181 Course to be flown.]
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, jeff > said:
>ok so this was offered to you, it was not a clearence.
>Somewhere, somehow, I thought I had read it was a clearence you received.

They didn't say "Go direct if able" or anything that would make me think
it was an offer, they said "Go direct ETX". (Or maybe it was "cleared
direct ETX")

>then as filed. You were comming out of Oshkosh right? I am sure they had

Nope, I was leaving Rochester NY on a nice mostly VFR Sunday afternoon.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
Either way, it'll remind the clued that there's only one letter
difference between 'turkey' and 'turnkey'.
-- Mike Andrews

[jeff]

are they telling you to go there or asking you if you would like direct?
you said they asked you if you would like that option in your first post.


Mike Adams wrote:

> That was the whole point of my original post. If I'm over Las Vegas, NM, and
> "Cleared Direct EMP" (Emporia, KS), which is some 400 nm away, they are
> telling me to go directly there, not "cleared as filed" via LBL, etc., and
> even though my flight plan was filed with a /A equipment suffix, they are
> assuming I've got RNAV capability.
>
> Mike
>
> In article >, jeff > wrote:
> >right, I know that, but unless you tell them you have a GPS or RNAV they
> > shouldnt
> >clear you to a VOR 200 miles away. If the instructions were cleared as filed to
> > xxx
> >VOR then you would go as filed, I think what would clarify everything would be
> > to
> >know the exact wording that he was given. Its easy to confuse things if the
> > exact
> >wording is not known. He said that he put /A on his flight plan, that would
> > only
> >indicate that he had DME/transponder and not GPS or RNAV
> >
> >
> >Craig Prouse wrote:
> >
> >> "jeff" wrote:
> >>
> >> > If I am told cleared to xxx VOR which is say, 200 nm miles away, I am
> > assuming
> >> > I
> >> > am cleared to there, so to get there, I will use the navaids available in
> > my
> >> > area. So if you was cleared direct to EMP you would use
> >> > KLVS V190 DHT V234
> >> > then expect more at EMP or close to it.
> >> > thats how I would take it, unless told otherwise, If I had questions I
> > would
> >> > ask.
> >>
> >> Jeff, when you're cleared from your present position to a VOR, you're
> >> cleared along the direct course to the VOR, period. You're not cleared to
> >> develop your own route using other navaids or convenient airways of your
> >> choice. That's why you need GPS or other RNAV equipment to fly such a
> >> clearance. [Ref: 91.181 Course to be flown.]
> >

[Mike Adams]

No, it wasn't phrased as an offer, it was just "cleared direct EMP". My
original post was as follows:

I had two similar recent experiences on this year's trip to Oshkosh that made
Re: Are handheld GPSes becoming a defacto primary nav source?
a few of the legs just for the experience. On the leg from LVS to OJC, I
checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately cleared direct
Newsgroups
had some other navigation capability. (We did.)


In article >, jeff > wrote:
>are they telling you to go there or asking you if you would like direct?
>you said they asked you if you would like that option in your first post.
>
>
>Mike Adams wrote:
>
>> That was the whole point of my original post. If I'm over Las Vegas, NM, and
>> "Cleared Direct EMP" (Emporia, KS), which is some 400 nm away, they are
>> telling me to go directly there, not "cleared as filed" via LBL, etc., and
>> even though my flight plan was filed with a /A equipment suffix, they are
>> assuming I've got RNAV capability.
>>
>> Mike

[vincent p. norris]

>Your instructor is wrong, there's nothing that prohibits filing an IFR
>direct route regardless of the status of your nav equipment. Whether or not
>the controller can clear you on such a route depends upon radar coverage,
>but if he can clear you direct once you're airborne he can also clear you
>direct when you're still on the ground.
>
On the first day private flying was permitted after 9-11, I filed
direct from Rutland VT to Bloomsburg PA , about 250 miles, with "VFR
GPS in "remarks," and got it! I was quite surprised, but perhaps the
fact that there was extremely little traffic that day had something to
do with it.

But for many years, before GPS or even RNAV, I filed direct from UNV
(central PA) to MAPEL (about 100 miles) direct Dulles, and usually got
it.

I was never asked how I could do it. (I had noticed that the radial
out of IAD (Dulles) that went through MAPEL also went through UNV.)

Direct LISON Direct DCA also worked, for similar reason.

vince norris

[Mike Adams]

Oops, the cut and paste from my earlier message didn't come out right. It's
corrected below:

"Mike Adams" > wrote in message
news:XKv6b.29591$S_.20412@fed1read01...
> No, it wasn't phrased as an offer, it was just "cleared direct EMP". My
> original post was as follows:
>
I had two similar recent experiences on this year's trip to Oshkosh that
made
me think the same thing. With a new instrument rating, I was trying to file
on
a few of the legs just for the experience. On the leg from LVS to OJC, I
checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately cleared direct
EMP. Now this is 450 NM, and I had filed /A, so they were obviously assuming
I
had some other navigation capability. (We did.)
>
> In article >, jeff > wrote:
> >are they telling you to go there or asking you if you would like direct?
> >you said they asked you if you would like that option in your first post.
> >
> >
> >Mike Adams wrote:
> >
> >> That was the whole point of my original post. If I'm over Las Vegas,
NM, and
> >> "Cleared Direct EMP" (Emporia, KS), which is some 400 nm away, they are
> >> telling me to go directly there, not "cleared as filed" via LBL, etc.,
and
> >> even though my flight plan was filed with a /A equipment suffix, they
are
> >> assuming I've got RNAV capability.
> >>
> >> Mike

[Robert M. Gary]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > I do the same and often get direct. However, FSS complains to no end when
> > I do it.
> >
>
> What's their beef?


They claim that the comment "VFR GPS" is not appropriate since you are
IFR (and I don't feel like playing educator to the FSS guys).
-Robert

[Roger Halstead]

On 11 Sep 2003 09:32:31 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >
>> > I do the same and often get direct. However, FSS complains to no end when
>> > I do it.
>> >
>>
>> What's their beef?
>
>
>They claim that the comment "VFR GPS" is not appropriate since you are
>IFR (and I don't feel like playing educator to the FSS guys).
>-Robert

I file /I using RNAV. No clmplaints yet, even though I use the 295
for navigation and the KNS-80 for back up.

Roger

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[Robert M. Gary]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > They claim that the comment "VFR GPS" is not appropriate since you are
> > IFR (and I don't feel like playing educator to the FSS guys).
> >
>
> Screw 'em. Anything YOU feel is pertinent to ATC or to the clarification of
> other flight plan information is appropriate for entry in block 11. It's
> not for FSS to decide what is appropriate and what is not.

Is it true that FSS is the lowest pay grade of an FAA employee??

[Newps]

No, not until they get contracted out.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>>>They claim that the comment "VFR GPS" is not appropriate since you are
>>>IFR (and I don't feel like playing educator to the FSS guys).
>>>
>>
>>Screw 'em. Anything YOU feel is pertinent to ATC or to the clarification of
>>other flight plan information is appropriate for entry in block 11. It's
>>not for FSS to decide what is appropriate and what is not.
>
>
> Is it true that FSS is the lowest pay grade of an FAA employee??

[Jules]

Me to.

Roger Halstead wrote:

>On 11 Sep 2003 09:32:31 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
>>
>>
>>>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I do the same and often get direct. However, FSS complains to no end when
>>>>I do it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What's their beef?
>>>
>>>
>>They claim that the comment "VFR GPS" is not appropriate since you are
>>IFR (and I don't feel like playing educator to the FSS guys).
>>-Robert
>>
>>
>
>I file /I using RNAV. No clmplaints yet, even though I use the 295
>for navigation and the KNS-80 for back up.
>
>Roger
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>