Filed Direct...

Autothrust Blue said:
"Y'all got a pen? Ready to copy?"

The real question, of course, is why did you file direct? Origin direct destination is not a flight plan (except in rare cases) that is in accordance with the Aeronautical Information Manual...
Click to expand...

Because "going green" is in style. Fly direct = burn less gas.

And I want to get where I'm going ASAP.

And because it's rule #1 in the 3 unwritten rules of being a charter pilot, as taught to me by one J. MacGruther.

#1 - file direct.

#2 - beer is food.

#3 - better thee than me.
 
JustinA said:
Uhhhh.... There is nothing wrong with filing direct.
Click to expand...


Welcome back man! How the heck have you been?
You are right there is nothing wrong with filing direct but if I am doing the GA GPS Direct thing I will try to put at least one fix in each center area I cross though so the guys can have a point on their radar I will be going to and from, otherwise I am wandering aimlessly accross the scope...
 
jhugz said:
My company flight plans are all direct, and we're /A.
Click to expand...
Excellent, you operate in an area where there's not a lot of terrain (or you're always above it) and there is always radar monitoring over the entirety of your route. Or if there's terrain you can climb above it.

(I was going to write something about the AIM specifying exactly how flight plans—including the origin-direct-destination kind—are supposed to be filed, but then I realized nobody cared. :insane: Call me an old-fashioned, rule- and guidance-following stick in the mud if you like, but that "guidance" is there for a reason.)

Oh, and what PFH said above is actually (drum roll) in the AIM when it comes to random RNAV routes. Makes it so that you actually show up on all the various Center computers between origin and destination. (No biggie.)
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Excellent, you operate in an area where there's not a lot of terrain (or you're always above it) and there is always radar monitoring over the entirety of your route. Or if there's terrain you can climb above it.

(I was going to write something about the AIM specifying exactly how flight plans—including the origin-direct-destination kind—are supposed to be filed, but then I realized nobody cared. :insane: Call me an old-fashioned, rule- and guidance-following stick in the mud if you like, but that "guidance" is there for a reason.)

Oh, and what PFH said above is actually (drum roll) in the AIM when it comes to random RNAV routes. Makes it so that you actually show up on all the various Center computers between origin and destination. (No biggie.)
Click to expand...

I think the real answer is.... I fly the flight plan they filed for me.
 
Pilotforhire587 said:
... I am doing the GA GPS Direct thing I will try to put at least one fix in each center area I cross though so the guys can have a point on their radar I will be going to and from, otherwise I am wandering aimlessly accross the scope...
Click to expand...

Autothrust Blue said:
Oh, and what PFH said above is actually (drum roll) in the AIM when it comes to random RNAV routes. Makes it so that you actually show up on all the various Center computers between origin and destination. (No biggie.)
Click to expand...

Pilots of aircraft equipped with approved area navigation equipment may file for RNAV routes throughout the National Airspace System and may be filed for in accordance with the following procedures.
Click to expand...

d. Area Navigation (RNAV)...
2. Pilots of aircraft equipped with approved area navigation equipment may file for RNAV routes throughout the National Airspace System and may be filed for in accordance with the following procedures.
...
(f) File a minimum of one route description waypoint for each ARTCC through whose area the random route will be flown. These waypoints must be located within 200 NM of the preceding center's boundary.
Click to expand...


Just so readers know, the use of the word "may" in the AIM, makes me think it is up to the pilots discretion and not the law.
 
Douglas said:
Just so readers know, the use of the word "may" in the AIM, makes me think it is up to the pilots discretion and not the law.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have a choice. You may file random RNAV routes, subject to the limitations of Paragraph (2), or you can file an airway, navaid-radial-DME, or one of the other myriad flight plan possibilities.

Yes, I know it's not regulatory in nature. Because nobody's ever been violated for not following a procedure in the AIM... :)
 
AIM is guidance, not regulatory.

ref. 14 C.F.R. 91.169 (IFR Flight Plan: Information Required)

a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing an IFR flight plan must include in it the following information:
(1) Information required under §91.153 (a) of this part;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an alternate airport.
Click to expand...

ref. 14 C.F.R. 91.153(a)

(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing a VFR flight plan shall include in it the following information:(1) The aircraft identification number and, if necessary, its radio call sign.
(2) The type of the aircraft or, in the case of a formation flight, the type of each aircraft and the number of aircraft in the formation.
(3) The full name and address of the pilot in command or, in the case of a formation flight, the formation commander.
(4) The point and proposed time of departure.
(5) The proposed route, cruising altitude (or flight level), and true airspeed at that altitude.
(6) The point of first intended landing and the estimated elapsed time until over that point.
(7) The amount of fuel on board (in hours).
(8) The number of persons in the aircraft, except where that information is otherwise readily available to the FAA.
(9) Any other information the pilot in command or ATC believes is necessary for ATC purposes.
Click to expand...
 
you're right, and everything will be cool until your lack of following guidance causes an issue that raises the question as to why you didn't follow the guidance! Not being judgmental either way, just saying that is the way things go down.
 
Bumblebee said:
you're right, and everything will be cool until your lack of following guidance causes an issue that raises the question as to why you didn't follow the guidance! Not being judgmental either way, just saying that is the way things go down.
Click to expand...

I'll buy you a keg the day that not following the AIM section on flightplan filing causes enforcement action. If you're in compliance with the FAR's, you're in compliance with the FAR's. The FAA would be hard pressed to justify not filing a fix within 200nm of an ARTCC boundary as "Reckless and careless", especially if you're in radar contact for the entire trip. Non-radar or crossing international FIR boundaries would probably justify something different, however. I'm not saying don't go out and make a route, there are certain places where it'd be pointless to file direct (the NE corridor or California for example)...but generally, I stick with the philosophy that if they have a problem with what you filed, you'll be rerouted...no big deal.

Granted, I haven't been at this very long, but I've never had any complaints from ATC. I usually ask this question to controllers in the facilities I've toured actually, ZID and PWM approach/tower have both given me the same answer (file direct and we'll reroute you if there's a problem, or the computer will for us) despite being very different facilities in very different parts of the country.

Autothrust Blue said:
Seriously? You make it sound like I don't know that.
Click to expand...

Not trying to imply that at all man, sorry if it came across that way. I suppose I was amazed at the amount of citation from the AIM and the lack of actual regulation in the thread.
 
element94 said:
I'll buy you a keg the day that not following the AIM section on flightplan filing causes enforcement action. If you're in compliance with the FAR's, you're in compliance with the FAR's. The FAA would be hard pressed to justify not filing a fix within 200nm of an ARTCC boundary as "Reckless and careless", especially if you're in radar contact for the entire trip.
Click to expand...
Without getting into the "regulatory" v. "non-regulatory" nonsense, the bottom line is that it's very unlikely that a failure to file a fix within 200 nm of an ARTCC boundary is going to cause any kind of a problem. The the only real relevance a filed IFR flight plan has at all is as the very last resort in a NORDO situation

But in the unlikely event that the failure to file the intermediate fixes did cause a problem, I doubt that the FAA would have any trouble citing a violation of the guidance as the basis for a "reckless" enforcement action.
 
In would agree that ot isn't likely in this specific scenario. I was broadening the view of the AIM ands from a (potential foggy) recollection of events where folks departed from or disregarded the guidance in the AIM and exasperated an issue into enforcement....
element94 said:
I'll buy you a keg the day that not following the AIM section on flightplan filing causes enforcement action. If you're in compliance with the FAR's, you're in compliance with the FAR's. The FAA would be hard pressed to justify not filing a fix within 200nm of an ARTCC boundary as "Reckless and careless", especially if you're in radar contact for the entire trip. Non-radar or crossing international FIR boundaries would probably justify something different, however. I'm not saying don't go out and make a route, there are certain places where it'd be pointless to file direct (the NE corridor or California for example)...but generally, I stick with the philosophy that if they have a problem with what you filed, you'll be rerouted...no big deal.

Granted, I haven't been at this very long, but I've never had any complaints from ATC. I usually ask this question to controllers in the facilities I've toured actually, ZID and PWM approach/tower have both given me the same answer (file direct and we'll reroute you if there's a problem, or the computer will for us) despite being very different facilities in very different parts of the country.



Not trying to imply that at all man, sorry if it came across that way. I suppose I was amazed at the amount of citation from the AIM and the lack of actual regulation in the thread.
Click to expand...
 
Bumblebee said:
In would agree that ot isn't likely in this specific scenario. I was broadening the view of the AIM ands from a (potential foggy) recollection of events where folks departed from or disregarded the guidance in the AIM and exasperated an issue into enforcement....
Click to expand...
You'll find them even outside the AIM. There's the one where a pilot busted the Boston Class B and was soundly criticized for not have current charts on board, although there is no requirement to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top