If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"G. Sylvester" wrote in message m... they'll happily give you direct JFK to SFO. It's up to you to do it. Direct to SFO from JFK? Unlikely. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. No kidding. My point was that, being that it's a _VFR_ GPS and that I did _not_ file /G, I am under no regulatory requirement at all to keep it current. What you are saying is the equivalent of a /G airplane with out of date databases. You are NOT legal to fly IFR with out of date databases (there are exceptions but in general, the answer is no). Yes, there are exceptions for enroute ops, but that's another matter. 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 took it it November and got a 98%. I am aware of the regs governing IFR GPS use. No offense, but you missed my point. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intersections (that I certainly hadn't filed for), not direct
to my dest. A direct route took you excessively off course? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 I haven't been doing that. That right there could (and probably does) explain 2 of the 3 cases I can recall of being asked this question. The last one, the one where I know I was a bit off course, was the aforementioned occurance where we lost vacuum just moments later.. though actually, honestly, I don't really think that was the culprit (though I normally do fly by the DG and VOR head and not the GPS ground track). This was my first time left seat in this particular airplane as well, and I was studying an approach plate (no excuse, I know). And, as I noted, not on this or any other time did I detect annoyance from the controller.. in fact she (Chicago center) was very polite and chipper. I'm sure (well, 99% sure) I have nothing to worry about. 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. Rudder trim? You mean the little tab on the back of the rudder? :-) I fly a '79 C-152, and, no, it does not fly completely hands-off level. Few of them do! 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. Another thing I've wondered about is how often the pilot is told when they'll be filing paperwork. It seems the norm is the dreaded "call this number on landing" but I know that they don't have to do that. If a controller was really peeved at you, he might take perverse pleasure in making sure you didn't know what was coming. Before somebody replies, I know that controllers are not out to violate pilots and are almost all good guys & gals. And 2) Just _what_ is the IFR "heading tolerance", anyway?? I should have stated the question as "course-deviation tolerance". |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message ... Direct to intersections (that I certainly hadn't filed for), not direct to my dest. What had you filed? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
ATC can't see your heading, just your ground track. They would have no way
of knowing that you are off-course by a "couple of degrees." Bob Gardner "Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message ... 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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message ... ATC can't see your heading, just your ground track. They would have no way of knowing that you are off-course by a "couple of degrees." Sure they do. If the observed track is other than the cleared route the aircraft is off course. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:07:35 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
wrote: 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. As you pointed out earlier. Solo IFR in IMC without an AP is one of the most demanding tasks in flying. It helps to have a non-pilot friend in the right seat (to hand you maps or lunch!). Man, even a single-axis AP would be nice! I have a wing-leveler in my Cherokee 180. Although wing levelers aren't the greatest, they do keep the plane upright and generally pointed in the same direction. I am glad to have it, but of course would like a 2-axis coupled AP. -Nathan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Ok. I was going from Milwaukee to Indianapolis: KMWC to KEYE (I think -
Indy Exec). I filed VORs starting with LJT to DPA (DuPage). DuPage is on the western edge of the ORD bravo. I figured this was enough out-of-the-way of the bravo to satisfy KORD approach. I was wrong, and have since learned that the route I was given is pretty much a preferred route going IFR south through that airspace. That route involved vectors then several intersections, as I'd said. The problem was compounded by the fact that I'm nearly certain that the tower controller mispoke and told me that the first waypoint was D32 on the R270 from BAE. 32 miles west of BAE?! Are you kidding me?! Turns out it's the R207, I discovered later, which obviously made much more sense. (I'm nearly certain that she mispoke, and I didn't mis-hear, as 207 was far closer to what I was expecting and where I was looking on the chart initially.) This is with me sitting in the runup area - amended clearance. My first one was vectors then as filed, I believe. Sitting there in the runup area, realizing my GPS DB was not current (nowhere close), AND being under the incorrect assumption that they wanted to send me half-way to Madison, I elected, as I said, to reject the clearance and go VFR - weather was well above mins and I figured I'd get a popup going into Indy (where weather had been a bit worse, cigs around 3000 if I recall) if I needed it. Other times I've been told to go direct involve uncontrolled fields with no navaid, after I've already been vectored off-course. An example would be going to Morey, C29, which is about 20 miles west-southwest of Madison, KMSN. I file direct to the MSN VOR, which is on the field, but am sometimes vectored around the airport (MSN is Class C and busy on weekends), then instructed to go direct C29. No problem with the VFR GPS, and obviously impossible without it. Of course, that doesn't bother me as I'm usually fairly confident that Morey hasn't moved. :-) I've noticed this also happens when I haven't even put "VFR GPS" in the remarks. Whatever. I'm learning how the system actually works (which is obviously not quite what we are told in training) and going with it. I know how to use my GPS (Garmin 295) inside-out now (did you know it can make omelettes?) and am going to verify intersection locations on the charts and keep the DB current enough that I should be quite unlikely to have problems. And probably start getting my clearances, when there's any doubt as to what I'll actually get, before engine start. I would guess that this is probably close to what most GA pilots who fly IFR w/out an IFR GPS are doing. Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message ... Direct to intersections (that I certainly hadn't filed for), not direct to my dest. What had you filed? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
this had me wondering if ATC is even making any distinction between IFR/non-IFR GPS!.) The short answer is "probably not". Like I said, controllers are not pilots, and I suspect most of them have no idea about the regulatory issues surrounding GPS certifications (nor should they). There is one official way you communicate to ATC what navigational capabilities your aircraft has, that that's the equipment suffix on your type code. File /U, and they'll give you clearances you can execute with VOR receivers. File /A, and they'll expect you to be able to identify DME fixes. File /G, and they'll expect you to be able to go direct to any en-route fix and fly GPS approaches. On the other hand, if you file /U and put "VFR GPS on board", you're leaving it to them to guess what you want, since "VFR GPS on board" has no official meaning. The most common guess seems to be "treat me as if I had filed /G", so they do. It turns out that this is indeed what most people want, so it works out and everybody's happy. You seem to be wanting something different, but I'm not sure what it is. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Clearance: Direct to airport with /U | Judah | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | February 27th 04 06:02 PM |
Direct To a waypoint in flightplan on Garmin 430 | Andrew Gideon | Instrument Flight Rules | 21 | February 18th 04 01:31 AM |
"Direct when able" | Mitchell Gossman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | October 21st 03 01:19 AM |
Filing direct | John Harper | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | October 9th 03 10:23 AM |
Don Brown and lat-long | Bob Gardner | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | September 29th 03 03:24 AM |