Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

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/...ca6b1e08d0f7fe
for the responses to the exact same question I asked.

For my trip experiences, check out
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4500b275ab3fad

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?