Controllers giving Direct to /a or /u

[robsingles]

Controllers giving Direct to /a or /u

I went on a trip across Florida yesterday evening, and filled /a as I had no gps onboard. I was given direct to a fix that I could not receive (an airport with no vor, or vor’s out of the way) on several occasions. Each time that I asked for a heading because I was not receiving or could not go direct the controllers response was oh I thought you had gps on board. Can they not see our /a? on the flight plan?

Thanks,

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Controllers giving Direct to /a or /u

I went on a trip across Florida yesterday evening, and filled /a as I had no gps onboard. I was given direct to a fix that I could not receive (an airport with no vor, or vor’s out of the way) on several occasions. Each time that I asked for a heading because I was not receiving or could not go direct the controllers response was oh I thought you had gps on board. Can they not see our /a? on the flight plan?

Thanks,

ATC can indeed see the equipment suffix. FWIW, IMO, given how often the average IFR pilot will accept without comment a direct clearance ("Hey, I have a handheld GPS"), ATC has begun to think that everyone can go direct. How many times have you heard the following:

ATC-"Can you accept direct Podunk Muni?"
Pilot-"Sure. We have a handheld GPS."
ATC-"Cleared direct Pondunk."

What did ATC hear the pilot state? "Sure." The rest of the pilot's reply is gibberish to the controller. The average controller doesn't know the certification requirements for IFR legal navigation. The average controller doesn't know that the world "handheld" and "legal IFR navigation" are mutually exclusive. The controller hears, "Sure", and the controller issues a clearance. The controller asks the question 10,000 times and 10,000 times the controller hears, "Sure", next thing you know, the controller thinks any /A or /U aircraft can fly direct.

 

[robsingles]

Sure Seems that way, I always tell them that I officially need a heading(vector) to go direct even if I have a handheld gps. But last night just shocked me how many times they gave me direct to a fix. Everytime I had to correct them.
Last night example: "Fly Direct Pahokee" "I say sir I am not receiving is it still out of service as the notam says?" "Ya it is I thought you had gps."

 

[Maverick]

This is an area I've been a bit confused about as well. I have GPS and RNAV on board but neither are IFR certified. Since the only flight plans I ever file are IFR I always use the /a suffix. However I do state VFR GPS Onboard in the comments section.

When I first started filling IFR after receiving my rating, I always filed and flew the airways using my NAV radios. On several trips ATC asked me if I could go direct and I always told them I had GPS but it was VFR only. In each case they cleared me direct anyway. After a while I started filing for direct routing when it made sense to do so, always telling the briefer that my GPS was not IFR certified and they never had a problem with me doing that. Of course I never tried to fly a GPS approach.I can't help wondering what the legality is in this case?

I also carry a handheld GPS as a backup in the event of electrical failure and it was extremely handy once when I lost my HSI while IMC going into Chicago's Palwaukee Airport. I was being vectored to the ILS 19 approach when the HSI failed. it was rather turbulent and my wet compass was dancing around like crazy. When I told ATC that I had just lost my HSI and had no directional gyro they immediately came back telling to turn to new heading 210 to intercept the localizer. I wonder what part of no gyro they didn't quite understand. Anyway, I used the handheld GPS in HSI mode for heading information and flew a rather erratic approach. Just as I was breaking out of the 600 ceiling, ATC asked me if I needed any special handling. I told them that I had it under control but could have used some help earlier when I said my HSI failed. They had no response.

I've heard that Chicago controller have little use or respect for small airplanes. Since i don't fly there regularly I really have no idea whether that's true or not.

Jeannie

 

[TMetzinger]

I've gotten "poorer-than-expected" service from Chicago many times. I find that a pilot needs to be assertive with them especially when he/she is having a difficult time.

Never be afraid to say "standby", "unable", or "urgent". All three words should get a controllers immediate focus. "Mayday" works as well, but generally distracts everyone on the frequency as we all shift into "how can I help" mode, so I try and save that one for situations where I need to absolutely positively be the controllers #1 priority.

Glad you got through the experience OK - in some ways I think a bad HSI/DG is harder to deal with than a failed AI, but that may be because I've only had my HSI fail once (on my instrument checkride - for real) and have had more than a handful of AI failures.

Best wishes,

 

[poadeleted20]

"N22RL, cleared direct CHOPS intersection."
"N22RL is slant alpha; how about vector 090 to join V16 near CHOPS."
"N22RL, cleared as requested."
I'm legal, and Potomac is happy.

 

[Maverick]

I've gotten "poorer-than-expected" service from Chicago many times. I find that a pilot needs to be assertive with them especially when he/she is having a difficult time.

Never be afraid to say "standby", "unable", or "urgent". All three words should get a controllers immediate focus. "Mayday" works as well, but generally distracts everyone on the frequency as we all shift into "how can I help" mode, so I try and save that one for situations where I need to absolutely positively be the controllers #1 priority.

Glad you got through the experience OK - in some ways I think a bad HSI/DG is harder to deal with than a failed AI, but that may be because I've only had my HSI fail once (on my instrument checkride - for real) and have had more than a handful of AI failures.

Best wishes,

I would agree that an HSI failure is harder to deal with than an AI failure. I've had both and it was much easier to deal with the loss of the AI. When I had that failure going into Chicago I was single pilot IFR in rather demanding conditions. With the failure of my HSI my autopliot was also useless uness I wanted to just go around in circles. It was turbuent, my instrument scan now included looking down at my leg where my handheld was and my directional information was lagging since it was coming from the hand held. I'll take an AI failure any day. Besides, I have a backup AI that's electrically operated.

Jeannie

 

[wsuffa]

I hate to say this, but one of these days Chicago Approach is going to fail to provide assistance to someone like you, Jeannie, and there will be a crash.

The correct reaction would be to conduct an investigation and fix the problem. The likely reaction will be to keep GA even further away from Chicago so "they can't get blamed". This is why privatized ATC will be a very bad idea.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

When I first started filling IFR after receiving my rating, I always filed and flew the airways using my NAV radios. On several trips ATC asked me if I could go direct and I always told them I had GPS but it was VFR only. In each case they cleared me direct anyway. After a while I started filing for direct routing when it made sense to do so, always telling the briefer that my GPS was not IFR certified and they never had a problem with me doing that. Of course I never tried to fly a GPS approach.I can't help wondering what the legality is in this case?

What's the legality in this case? Completely illegal.

ATC is not responsible for determining whether or not the offered clearance is legal for the pilot/equipment to which the clearance is offered--that is the pilot's responsibility. As Ron Levy's analogy goes, tower can offer you a low level, high speed, inverted pass down the runway, but absent an effective low level aerobatic waiver the pilot who accepts such a clearance is toast. Same for a pilot in a /A equipped aircraft accepting direct somewhere for which the aircraft isn't properly equipped.

 

[Maverick]

What's the legality in this case? Completely illegal.

ATC is not responsible for determining whether or not the offered clearance is legal for the pilot/equipment to which the clearance is offered--that is the pilot's responsibility. As Ron Levy's analogy goes, tower can offer you a low level, high speed, inverted pass down the runway, but absent an effective low level aerobatic waiver the pilot who accepts such a clearance is toast. Same for a pilot in a /A equipped aircraft accepting direct somewhere for which the aircraft isn't properly equipped.

So basically ATC will knowingly offer and sanction the use of GPS in a manner that goes against FAA regulations. Ok, lesson learned. If I have this right, there is an apparent and total disregard on the part of ATC for the legality of flight operations that they often initiate through their instructions to pilots. Interesting! I'm not so concerned about the inadvertent mistaken instruction but when it is made clear to them and they sanction it anyway then I have a problem with that. All that does is create a bad situation and a lot of confusion. I understand it's ultimately my responsibility but why would ATC want to create confusion?

From now on I will not accept any further "go direct" instructions from ATC that would require the use of GPS in an IFR situation nor will I ask for any until such time as I have a IFR certified GPS.

Thanks,
Jeannie

 

[Greg Bockelman]

So basically ATC will knowingly offer and sanction the use of GPS in a manner that goes against FAA regulations.

I guess you could rightly look at it that way. OTOH, all it would take is for the controller to say "Fly heading XXX until recieving..." to make it legal.

Ok, lesson learned. If I have this right, there is an apparent and total disregard on the part of ATC for the legality of flight operations that they often initiate through their instructions to pilots.

I don't know if I would go that far, but legally I suppose you are right.

I understand it's ultimately my responsibility but why would ATC want to create confusion?

Well it is up to the PIC to understand the limits of the equipment he is using.

From now on I will not accept any further "go direct" instructions from ATC that would require the use of GPS in an IFR situation nor will I ask for any until such time as I have a IFR certified GPS.

The prudent thing to do.

 

[gismo]

So basically ATC will knowingly offer and sanction the use of GPS in a manner that goes against FAA regulations. Ok, lesson learned. If I have this right, there is an apparent and total disregard on the part of ATC for the legality of flight operations that they often initiate through their instructions to pilots. Interesting! I'm not so concerned about the inadvertent mistaken instruction but when it is made clear to them and they sanction it anyway then I have a problem with that. All that does is create a bad situation and a lot of confusion. I understand it's ultimately my responsibility but why would ATC want to create confusion?

From now on I will not accept any further "go direct" instructions from ATC that would require the use of GPS in an IFR situation nor will I ask for any until such time as I have a IFR certified GPS.

Thanks,
Jeannie

I think you'll find that in general ATC just isn't really up to speed on GPS in the IFR system. Certain aspeccts of the rules apply to them and others to us pilots. For instance ATC isn't supposed to allow random (direct off airway) flight unless they have you in constant radar contact. Some facilities/controllers enforce this to the nth degree and in their care you will be directed to an airway or a higher altitude whenever you fall out of radar coverage on such a route. Others will just tell you that you are no longer in radar contact and let you proceed to a point where they can see you without altering your course. And since AFaIK, there is no FAR that says a pilot cannot remain on a random route without radar coverage, a pilot is free to accept this bending of the rules without enforcement peril. Similarly I suspect that a controller wouldn't be in hot water if they offered and a pilot accepted direct to a waypoint that the pilot/plane couldn't navigate to without a GPS even if the controller knew that the pilot only had a VFR GPS.

One thing that I believe is legally acceptable is for a pilot with a VFR GPS asking and accepting a clearance for a vector to a VOR who's service volume doesn't include the pilot's current position because the pilot could manage to reach that VOR on his own even without the GPS as long as it's close enough that the plane wouldn't have wandered too far off course so they might never get inside the SV. Another is the "heading to intercept an airway".

 

[alaskaflyer]

"N22RL, cleared direct CHOPS intersection."
"N22RL is slant alpha; how about vector 090 to join V16 near CHOPS."
"N22RL, cleared as requested."
I'm legal, and Potomac is happy.

Hmmm, I like it! Of course up here I'm not in radar coverage until about 9000 MSL

 

[poadeleted20]

Y'all keep in mind that the controller doesn't really know what you have in the way of equipment, whether avionics (e.g., /G doesn't tell him whether or not you can accept a GPS approach), or de-ice, or pressurization, or supplemental O2, or whatever, just like you don't know his rules on aircraft separation and spacing or what other airplane's he's separating you from or what the MVA is where you are. You do your job, the controller does his/hers, and with a little cooperation and understanding (spelled c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n), we all fulfill our responsibilities and no rules are broken. Just don't ever assume the controller knows your rules/equipment/capabilities, and don't assume you understand all his/her.