In article ,
"Stan Prevost" wrote:

Just to be clear, it applies only to RNAV approaches and an RNAV-capable
aircraft. The ILS approach you were on does not meet that criterion.

The 7110.65 provides for controllers to issue the instruction. It is 5-4-7i
in the AIM.

Ah, thanks. 5-4-7-i says:

i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix
to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument approach
procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing Advanced RNAV
aircraft to the intermediate fix:

1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.

2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix at
least 5 miles from the fix.

NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.

Which is fine. If the guy had told us 5 miles earlier, "expect direct
FARAN", that would have given us a couple of minutes to set the box up.
I'm not going to pick nits about RVAV vs. ILS, I'm just looking for a the
time it takes to do all the button pushing I have to do to comply with his
instruction.

The other thing I don't understand is why the controller preferred "direct
FARAN" to "fly heading 200 to intercept the localizer". They both boiled
down to about the same ground track. They both required that he monitor
our progress on radar. The heading to intercept was certainly easier for
us to execute. Was there some advantage to the controller to issue it the
way he did?