Various ATC questions

In article ,
says...


FromTheShadows,

Ok, let's give this a try. For those not following all threads: This is
a try by FromTheShadows (real names have a nice touch of honesty and
responsibility to them, BTW - if you won't stand by your words with your
name, what are they worth?) to get answers to questions he thinks are
valuable for the group despite having been originally posted by
you-know-who. His solution is to repost them under his name. For the
sake of the experiment, I will be very happy to answer any questions and
comments - except those from you-know-who.



So, in addition to Mx, we now have Mx proxys as well!
Soon we'll have Mx's lawyers here, just to argue the fine points.

These questions are fine, except for two things:
1) If you're going to fly IFR, you have to study the rules a bit. It's not
that hard, but it is indispensible. You will quickly learn, in this case,
that a clearance limit and/or EFC, or "what happens next" is always part of
a clearance. If it isn't, you're supposed to ask for it. So, inundating the
discussion group with questions that would have been answered in five
minutes worth of reading is, well, not a very nice thing to do.

2)The one who does try to answer will be led down a garden path (thorny
garden) of follow-up questions and challenges to his answers, which in most
cases will end with his failure to follow some twist in the maniacal path,
which will bring the conclusion, even if he is a commercial pilot, flying
IFR every day, that he is just "blowing smoke". The pilot, who thought he
was helping out by applying his experience to answer a seemingly simple
question, suddenly wakes up and realizes he has spend hours of his time,
only to be accused of knowing nothing, by someone who initially introduced
himself as knowing nothing.


If this pattern had not been established and repeated countless times, then
no one would get cross about answering these seemingly simple questions.

GF

Good questions there Craig. How on earth did you think them up? They are
so good that the US government has written a book that covers these and many
other questions. Here's a link http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/ if after you
have read through you have follow up questions we'll be here.


"fromTheShadows" wrote in message
...
A few questions on ATC:

1. If I am told to "depart XYZ heading 150" while IFR, and the last
heading given to me by ATC does not quite take me to an intercept of
the XYZ VOR, should I turn to intercept the VOR? Should I wait for
ATC to tell me to turn directly towards the VOR? Should I turn and
apprise ATC of my turn? Or should I just intercept the 150 radial
from the VOR, and then turn to follow that? The last time this
happened, I just silently turned to intercept the VOR (I wasn't far
off, and I assumed that ATC wanted me vectored towards the VOR to
begin with, since it was in my flight plan and I had previously been
vectored in that general direction), but I don't know if this was
right.

2. If I am VFR in Class B, on a transition route, are altitude and
heading at my discretion (within the limits of the transition route)
UNLESS ATC directs me to a specific altitude and/or heading, or do I
always wait for ATC to provide exact instructions?

3. If ATC says "proceed direct to XYZ," and XYZ is a waypoint in my
IFR flight plan, do I assume that I can resume my own navigation after
reaching XYZ, or do I maintain the same course and altitude until
otherwise instructed, even after reaching XYZ?

4. If an IFR departure plate says "fly runway heading, then vectors to
fix (or) XYZ," I take that to mean that I continue on the runway
heading after take-off, until ATC tells me to turn towards some other
fix. Is this correct? If the fix is on my flight plan, do I
automatically resume my own navigation after reaching it, or do I
maintain my heading until ATC says otherwise? If the fix is on the
plate, and the plate says "then own navigation," do I resume my own
navigation after reaching the fix, or do I wait for ATC instructions?

As you can see, I'm still confused as to when I must wait for ATC
instructions to change altitude or heading, and when I'm at my
discretion to do so (either without restriction, as in VFR, or
according to my flight plan in IFR). Recently I went too far in a
Class B airspace in my sim because I had been told which runway I was
being given, but I had not been told to turn, and I thought I had to
continue in the same direction until ATC explicitly gave me a new
heading. So I'm still confused.

Cheers,

Craig

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Good questions there Craig. How on earth did you think them up? They are
so good that the US government has written a book that covers these and many
other questions. Here's a link http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/ if after you
have read through you have follow up questions we'll be here.


:-) I realise that idiot questions from sim pilots are understandably
only barely tolerated here, but if it was a requirement to read every
available publication before posting then there wouldn't be much traffic.

Anyway, I think I've made my point (such as it is) so I'm out of here
until someone pulls my chain again.

Cheers,

Craig

"fromTheShadows" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Good questions there Craig. How on earth did you think them up? They
are so good that the US government has written a book that covers these
and many other questions. Here's a link http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/ if
after you have read through you have follow up questions we'll be here.


:-) I realise that idiot questions from sim pilots are understandably only
barely tolerated here, but if it was a requirement to read every available
publication before posting then there wouldn't be much traffic.

Anyway, I think I've made my point (such as it is) so I'm out of here
until someone pulls my chain again.

Cheers,

Craig



No you don't have to read everything but in this and all groups it is nice
if you Google and see if the info is readily available before you ask. The
real reason I answered as I did was there was one time that MX was given a
link to an FAA publication and then came back and pretty much said what was
in the manual was wrong. I wish I could find that message but I don't
remember the specific topic and MX has so many posts that I could hope to
find it.

Please note that you did get a couple of very good answers.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

No you don't have to read everything but in this and all groups it is nice
if you Google and see if the info is readily available before you ask.

Which manual answers my specific questions?

The real reason I answered as I did was there was one time that MX was given a
link to an FAA publication and then came back and pretty much said what was
in the manual was wrong. I wish I could find that message but I don't
remember the specific topic and MX has so many posts that I could hope to
find it.

Uh-huh.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

No you don't have to read everything but in this and all groups it is
nice
if you Google and see if the info is readily available before you ask.

Which manual answers my specific questions?


You didn't even look at the link provided. That is just about par for the
course. In this case it was the AIM.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Good questions there Craig. How on earth did you think them up? They are
so good that the US government has written a book that covers these and many
other questions. Here's a link http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/ if after you
have read through you have follow up questions we'll be here.

If the only purpose of this group is to answer questions that are not
answered elsewhere, then the group need not exist, because _all_
questions are answered elsewhere.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Good questions there Craig. How on earth did you think them up? They are
so good that the US government has written a book that covers these and many
other questions. Here's a link http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/ if after you
have read through you have follow up questions we'll be here.

If the only purpose of this group is to answer questions that are not
answered elsewhere, then the group need not exist, because _all_
questions are answered elsewhere.

What makes you think this group exists to answer your or anyone's else
questions? The point is that you should attempt to look at the
references and learn something before you come here and ask these
questions. Do some of the work yourself and you will receive much
better treatment here.

John Theune writes:

The point is that you should attempt to look at the
references and learn something before you come here and ask these
questions.

I do.

Do some of the work yourself and you will receive much
better treatment here.

No, I won't. That's not the part that irritates (some) people.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Theune writes:

The point is that you should attempt to look at the
references and learn something before you come here and ask these
questions.

I do.

Judging from some of a lot of the questions and comments you've
made in this group to date, I can guarantee that you either haven't
read them, or are fooling yourself into believing you have read them.
Either way, go back and read them.

Do some of the work yourself and you will receive much
better treatment here.

No, I won't. That's not the part that irritates (some) people.

Then you get what you deserve. If you don't want to be bothered
with doing the work and reading the published material out there, then
don't expect to be greeted nicely with questions that aren't a) already
have been frequently asked, b) haven't already been answered before in
the 15+ years this newsgroup has been around, and c) you already think
are wrong.

If you want to ask questions, rec.aviation.student and
rec.aviation.simulators are all further down the street.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFa5jgyBkZmuMZ8L8RAuM+AJwOnFLIwQwEHLYD5TVa//j3tZ0DqgCgrbJn
d9UUnWu5vJECR1oAy5oVmkg=
=BzlE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----