| by |
John Deakin |
 |
|
|
| About the Author ... |
|
John Deakin is a 35,000-hour pilot who worked his way up the aviation food chain
via charter, corporate, and cargo flying; spent five years in Southeast Asia
with Air America; 33 years with Japan Airlines, mostly as a 747 captain; and
now flies the Gulfstream IV for a West Coast operator.
He also flies his own
V35 Bonanza (N1BE) and is very active in the warbird and vintage aircraft
scene, flying the C-46, M-404, DC-3, F8F Bearcat, Constellation, B-29, and
others. He is also a National Designated Pilot Examiner (NDPER), able to give
type ratings and check rides on 43 different aircraft types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can't do it? Rubbish!
Yeah, I know, the handheld is not
FAA-Approved, or TSO-129 compliant. Well, neither is a #2 pencil,
but that doesn't mean you need an FAA-approved pencil (yet) to
write down a clearance, and you don't need an IFR-approved GPS
to use one while IFR, either. I wouldn't be so hot on this subject,
except for the fact that IFR certification has made most of the
IFR-certified units less useful, and perhaps even less safe, than
many of the handhelds! The IFR panel-mounts are much more complex,
harder to use, and with far less in the way of features,
and data, thanks to the difficulty and expense of getting through
the FAA certification process.
The key to this discussion is separating
what you must have on board the aircraft for IFR
flight, from what you actually use and how
you must use it.
FAR 91.205(d)(2), which covers minimum
equipment for IFR flight says "Two-way radio communications
system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities
to be used."
I take this to mean that if you have
VOR and/or ADF on board for the navigation, you're covered in
the USA, provided you can reasonably use it to get where you're
going and shoot an approach there. It doesn't say you must use
that old stuff.
Note carefully, you cannot legally
fly IFR with a handheld GPS, if that is the only
navigation device on board, and we may never be able to do that,
even with fully-approved, IFR GPS.
Now that we're all used to "slant
Romeo" for "Area Nav," the FAA went and changed
it by NOTAM (The AIM hasn't been changed yet, at least as of August
13, 1998). Now, "/R" refers to a system of trans-oceanic
navigation with very high accuracy. The new designator for "Area
Navigation" is "/I" ("Slant India"),
or "/G" ("slant Golf") for an IFR-approved
GPS.
The /I designator is only used if
you truly have an approved Area Navigation system, which can be
the old King KNS-80, or an approved IFR Loran. The /G is used
only for an IFR-approved GPS. There are other systems, but they
are not usually found in the GA world.
What suffix do you file if you have
only a handheld GPS, and the usual VOR/ADF? You simply disregard
the GPS, and file whatever code indicates the rest of your gear,
typically DME and Transponder, perhaps /A or /U.
Some with VFR-only GPS add in the
"Remarks" area "VFR GPS" or "GPS on board".
This is not really necessary, but for a "with-it" controller,
it does let them know you do have some additional capabilities,
even if unapproved.
First, I suggest you find the "Preferential
Routes" pages, and simply throw them away forever. I find
them totally useless, antiquated artifacts of an earlier age.
They are often out of date, and besides, ATC will give you "the
plan of the day" anyway.
Unless I have some reason (weather,
hostile terrain, etc.), I invariably file IFR from my point of
departure to my destination, "direct" with no intermediate
waypoints. You folks who fly in the Northeastern USA will
be having fits of giggles at this, but never mind, "direct"
is a way of life everywhere else!
You will sometimes find a briefer,
or an "intermediary," who believes this is not proper,
and they may fuss, wanting a more complex routing. It's up to
you how hard to push this, but they are dead wrong. Both the
humans and the computers involved can handle this simple routing
with aplomb. I had this happen at Hawthorne (HHR) some time ago
after I had computer-filed IFR direct to Seattle's Arlington airport
(AWO). The poor guy working Hawthorne Ground Control came back
and said "LA Center says you've filed an invalid routing,
and they need a more complete route." We went back and forth
a bit, and finally he said "I don't have the foggiest idea
who's right here, but this guy is getting testy, suggest you contact
Hawthorne FSS and file a route that the computer will take."
So I called them on the radio and
explained the problem. The fellow said something (in a disgusted
voice) to the effect that LA Center didn't know what they were
talking about and came back a moment later with, "No problem,
just call Ground Control again, have a nice flight." By
the time I switched, ground had my clearance, "Cleared to
AWO via radar vectors, direct, fly heading 210 after takeoff."
Perfect.
It wasn't that the computer wouldn't
take my flight plan, the person working it probably wouldn't even
punch it in, thinking there was no way it would work.
It is a sad fact that some modern
wristwatches have more (and faster) electronics than the current
FAA computers—and with a lot more storage, too. The FAA computers
can barely contain the minimum data on major airports and navaids
within one Center's airspace, and a few other major terminals
in airspace outside their own center. As a result, if you file
direct in either direction between Arlington, Wash., and Hawthorne
Calif., the computers will be very confused, and will be unable
to process the flight plan. For this reason, it is best to file
"DeparturePoint direct Lat/Lon direct Destination",
with the "Lat/Lon" being the latitude and longitude
of the destination. That way, the computer can calculate the
direction and distance from the point of departure to some point
beyond their boundary, and it doesn't care what's next, or that
the next point (the destination) is the same as the Lat/Lon.
Stupid computers go for stupid solutions. It looks like this:
KAWO..N3355/W11820..KHHR
In the "Remarks" section,
it is best to note: "Lat/Lon is KHHR." That will let
the humans who process the flight plan know what's going on.
With this, the ATC computer (or its
operator) may not know where KHHR is, but it can find that Lat/Lon,
and thus "knows" the direction of flight, which the
only thing it really cares about.
First, in today's real world, ATC
simply assumes that everyone has the capability to go direct anywhere,
and they simply don't care how it gets done. Even if you don't
file a suffix that indicates Area Nav, you'll sometimes get a
clearance that can't be done any other way. I've even had controllers
get a little annoyed when the response is "Unable Direct".
Yes, yes, technically the controller is supposed to check the
suffix and not assign "direct" unless the aircraft shows
Area Nav capability, but more and more, few bother and they just
assume it's so. In real, practical terms, it's up to the pilot
to accept or reject, which is just as it should be, in my opinion.
Another trick when asking for advisories
is when, for example, Seattle Center asks "Where is HHR?"
I'll answer "Hawthorne, California," and the next question
is sure to be, "What are the coordinates for that?"
because the SEA computer doesn't know them. It is ironic that
my handheld Garmin 195 knows where every airport, VOR, NDB, Intersection,
and SUA is in the entire Western Hemisphere, plus airport data
on all of them, and terrain features, but Seattle's mainframe
computer doesn't know where HHR is. If I think the controller
is busy, I'll often just say "Aw, just punch in my destination
as LAX, and I'll sort it out with LA Center later." Usually,
there is an on-air sigh of relief, and "Thanks!" That
way the computer is happy, I'm happy, and the controller doesn't
have to punch in a bunch of numbers, so he's happy. Once I'm
turned over to L. A. Center, I'll say "Destination change,
Hawthorne, HHR." The only response is likely to be "Roger."
A tip on asking for advisories:
remember the person on the other end is often very busy, even
if you don't hear him on the air. There may be voices or sounds
coming in both ears, he may be on one or more "landlines,"
and he's probably mentally juggling a lot of "stuff."
The more professional you can sound on the radio, on that very
first call, the more likely he is to accept you. On the other
hand, if your first transmission or two is long, rambling, in
no particular order, he is very likely to just say "Unable"
to you, and "Squirrel" under his breath (this is not
a compliment). One little procedure I like, that seems to work
well is saying, on the initial contact:
"Good Morning, Seattle Center,
N1BE, VFR Request"
This is short and sweet, and lets
him know exactly what is coming. He can finish whatever he's
doing, make a couple entries in the computer, then set it up for
my information, and say "N1BE, go ahead".
"N1BE, a BE35/R, off Arlington,
climbing to one seven thousand five hundred, VFR to LAX"
Note I didn't tell him "3.7
DME on the PAE 140 Radial" or any exact position? He doesn't
need that, he's going to look in the general area, and watch for
a target that changes from 1200 to whatever he is about to issue.
Note also, I didn't say my current altitude, he's not quite ready
for that, yet.
"N1BE, squawk 1234"
"N1BE, squawking 1234, three
thousand, climbing"
Now he'll see my target change/pop
up on his display, with an altitude, which he can cross-check
from my words. I believe you will find yourself denied advisories
far less often with this technique.
But, I digress, let's get back to
flying "direct."
Let's start at the simplest level
and do a couple of conceptual exercises to lay the groundwork.
I say "conceptual," because they are probably too much
work for most of us, and it is probably just easier to go airways,
or VOR to VOR. Let's not let reality intrude here, we're playing
thought games!
Assume you have only one VOR for
navigation. With this, you're legal to file and fly IFR anywhere
in the USA. True, it may not be wise to depend entirely on one
radio, or to do this in high activity areas, but out in the boonies,
and with radar, I'd do it. (Sure would be nice to have a handheld
GPS and a handheld radio, FAA-approved or not, though!) Using,
say, a Sectional Chart, lay out your "direct" course,
and lay out some waypoints wherever you like. Using forecast
winds, calculate your required heading and time for each leg.
Next, file "direct," get
your clearance, and launch. Fly the calculated heading for the
time you've estimated to your first waypoint. What radio aid
are you navigating on? Nothing, just heading. I know of no requirement
to have a continuous display of navigation information.
Even going VOR to VOR, there is a "break" of several
seconds while changing stations (he said with tongue only slightly
in cheek).
About the time you expect to be over
your first waypoint, take a fix, using that single VOR on two
different stations, and mark it on your chart. By calculating
backwards, it's easy enough to figure out your actual track, groundspeed,
and since you know what your heading and True Airspeed were, you
can calculate the actual average wind you've been flying in.
By applying that to the course from your current position to the
next waypoint, you can refine your navigation, and return
to the original track. Sure, all this is a pain, but it's surprisingly
accurate, and believe it or not, we used to do this all the time
crossing the oceans! Any pilot can learn to do this, the main
reason we had professional Navigators was because the fixes needed
celestial navigation, and that takes a lot longer to learn. Besides,
a celestial fix required the pilot to first get up, and then do
some real work, and both are anathema to any self-respecting airline
pilot!
Of course, this exercise would be
a lot easier with two VORs, VOR/DME, or DME/DME. It gets better
yet with something like a KNS-80, the ancient area navigation
device that brought RNAV to General Aviation.
Remember, this was only a mental
exercise.
There is another way to "cheat"—legally.
Figure out a rough heading from your Sectionals, your computer,
or even the handheld GPS, and use this terminology when IFR: "Center,
request heading 140, when able, direct Key West." That also
lets the controller know what you're planning. So what if you
won't receive the Key West VOR for another sixteen hours? You'd
be surprised how primitive the radios are in some of the airliners
belonging to "cost-conscious" operators, and they use
this little trick all the time.
How accurately do you have to fly
these "direct" routings? Not very! Suppose the wind
blows you off the direct route when ATC assigned you that "long-term
heading?" Many worry about this, for no good reason. You
will not get a "direct" clearance unless you are within
radar coverage, so many feel "Big Brother is Watching."
Well, yes—and no. Fact is, the radar controller doesn't care
how accurate your navigation is, his only concern is separating
you from other traffic by 3 to 5 nautical miles, or 1,000 ft.
vertically. For this reason, he wants to count on you continuing
to do what you're doing (heading and altitude, unless you get
something different), so he doesn't get a rude surprise if he's
running someone past you just 5 miles away. ATC radar is fully
capable of picking up even very small deviations from a course,
but unless the controller thinks you're confused or lost, he probably
won't say anything if he sees you drifting off-course. Then it
will be a matter of just letting you know, more or less as a courtesy.
You fly the airplane, he keeps the traffic separated.
If we can do all that with just one
VOR, or NDB, then what's wrong with cranking up a handheld GPS
and smoothing out those corrections? Why not just fly the GPS,
as long as the heading appears reasonable, and you make occasional
(frequent?) cross-checks with a VOR, DME, NDB, or anything else
(including visual fixes)?
Some go a little nuts over this,
protesting "What if the GPS fails, or wanders off?"
Well, what if you're navigating via VOR, or ADF, and the station,
or the aircraft radio fails? If the device, whatever it is, starts
calling for an unreasonable heading, a real pilot will check it
out, before following it blindly. I have seen a VOR (in Europe)
give gradually increasing errors (huge errors!) while flying towards
it, and even with triple INS, and other fixes, and radar, it was
a disorienting event. Later, we were told that the military were
"spoofing," deliberately causing the errors, and had
"forgotten" to NOTAM the VOR out of service! Hmm, maybe
VORs need RAIM? (That's sarcasm, folks, RAIM is a method for
detecting GPS problems that the FAA insists is necessary.)
ANY
device can err, and cause
confusion, but in my experience, the GPS is the least likely to
do so, and will probably be the most obvious when it does. It
is, of course, far more accurate than anything else when it does
work. It is astonishing to me that the FAA will not allow any
handheld GPS to be used as the primary enroute navigation device
in a radar environment, when that same FAA will allow a VOR approach
(or worse, an NDB approach) off a fix that is located well away
from the airport. The FAA seems to be taking the overall approach
with GPS that "Only certified perfection will do," while
allowing (or requiring) far more dangerous things simply because
it always has.
Equally amazing to me are the pilots
who will go well out of their way to "navigate" via
airways, even when VFR! One new GPS owner carefully programmed
an entire six-hour flight into his new toy, including dog-legs!
He was quite irritated when I just punched in "direct"
to the final destination on my own GPS, and proceeded in that
direction. The media may think there are "highways in the
sky," but I don't. In fact, I get quite testy when ATC tries
to put me on airways for their own convenience, and I will usually
cancel IFR, if conditions permit (and do an inflight refile later,
if needed). It would be silly for a boat to go from buoy to buoy
and it's just as silly to go over VORs when there is no need to.
This is also a good time to point
out that VORs are "choke points," where lots of airplanes
DO "come together." Hopefully, not fatally. Did I
mention that going VOR to VOR costs more money, more time, and
more fuel? That it could make the difference between making an
unneeded stop, or not?
There are some other considerations,
however.
Pilots are always responsible
for terrain clearance. Even on airways, even when being radar
vectored, the penalty for "attempted penetration of granite"
is instant death. During the NTSB hearing the controller may
be very sorry he let you do it, and he may even get some blame
if he made an error, but the pilot and all occupants of the aircraft
pay the price. Never, EVER forget this. You must ALWAYS know
where you are, and where the terrain is. The number one rule
of flying is "Don't hit nuthin'." (Next is "Don't
do nuthin' stupid.") Alas, if people would only follow those
two rules we could get rid of the FAA and most of the FARs.
How do we determine and maintain
MEAs when going "direct" (or any other time, for that
matter)? Simple, use those gorgeous Sectional Charts! The non-informative
IFR charts can be left in the bag, because the Sectional has all
the information you need, far more than the IFR chart. Not only
that, they are beautiful works of art, a pleasure to look at,
and use—far more "character" than those barren IFR
charts. By doing this, you have terrain information right at
your fingertips and a whole lot of additional potentially life-saving
information, too. By keeping a running match between the airports
on your moving-map display and the sectional, you have continuous
knowledge of landing spots. By looking ahead, you can make deviations
that may put you over less-hostile terrain, or more hospitable
airports. By looking at the actual terrain levels, and the MEF
(Maximum Elevation Figure) in each quadrangle, it's easy enough
to add 1,000' (2,000' in mountainous areas) and come up with a
safe altitude. You must absolutely do this when off airways,
just as faithfully as you check MEA on airways (you DO that, don't
you?).
In short, the Sectional Chart keeps
a much higher level of "Situational Awareness" going,
which is a very good thing. Pretty soon now we'll have cheap,
color, high-resolution moving maps and then we'll be able to stuff
the Sectional in the flight bag, too.
There also exists something of a
"safety net," in that controllers are required to keep
you at or above MEA (Minimum Enroute Altitude), MIA (Minimum IFR
Altitude), or MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude), whichever is appropriate.
They do a superb job of this, perhaps even too good, but don't
let that lull you into any sense of security. Remember, it's
an automatic death penalty on this one.
Again, technically, the pilot is
responsible for avoiding Prohibited Areas, Restricted Areas, MOAs,
and Class A through D airspace. However, I'm willing to turn
over a bit more responsibility for this (than for terrain) to
ATC radar. Their Order 7110.65L (Air Traffic Control Handbook)
mandates that they keep track of SUAs and not let either IFR traffic,
or traffic on VFR Advisories penetrate any "hot"
areas. The simple fact is, pilots have no easy way of knowing when
most of these areas are "hot," or whether they will
get cleared through them. Unless I know the area is always hot
(Groom Lake, Area 51, Dreamland), I just file and fly direct until
ATC tells me I can't, then I "negotiate" the best routing
I can get. For the big ones, I ask well in advance, so I don't
end up flying right up to them, then making a giant turn to go
around.
The Garmin 195 allows a particularly
neat trick from the moving map page. Merely move the cursor forward
along your course line with the four-way button, and you can get
a perfect idea of all SUAs that are coming. If there does happen
to be something out there you need to avoid, just move the cursor
to a point that will bypass it, push "WPT," then "Enter,"
and you have a new course to fly.
While all SUA just goes away when
IFR, Class B airspace is something of an exception to the above
when VFR. You must not assume anything with Class Bs while VFR,
even with advisories. For Class B airspace, when VFR, you must
hear the magic words "Cleared to enter the Class B."
No exceptions, please.
Some pilots will inadvertently drift
off a VOR radial, then rather than correcting back to the desired
course as their CFI taught them, they'll re-center the needle,
and head for the station, again. This is called "homing,"
and it is a very bad thing, really sloppy airmanship, and probably
takes away points from your score in heaven. In fact, you may
get to visit heaven (or the other place) earlier than you intended
if you make a habit of this.
But, I've also seen people deviate
around weather (or SUA), or receive vectors for traffic, then
return to the original GPS course with a fairly sharp intercept
heading. This is entirely unnecessary, and does not increase
those points. Punch in a new "direct," and follow it,
getting a clearance when IFR for "Present Position Direct
." You may have heard ATC telling someone
"When able, direct to ?" This is exactly
what they mean, a nice new direct course, the shortest distance
from wherever you ended up. It's not cheating when it's deliberate.
In short, that handheld GPS that
the FAA seems to hate so much is a very valuable tool in the cockpit,
even when IFR, and should be fully used for situational awareness,
and to some degree, for navigation. As with all devices, it should
be cross-checked by other means.
Be careful up there!
Email this article
