Filed Direct...

There's a right way and a wrong way to do things. I like doing things the right way, just seems....right.
 
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...

Last I checked, the AIM isn't regulatory. As such, it's just a suggestion. That said, if the FAA wants to BBQ you, they'll find a way.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
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... :)
Click to expand...

AIM police! RUUNNNN!!!
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Careless or reckless is a pretty broad term, and they will use it. Let's just say I want less exposure :)

AIM police (...)
Click to expand...
Nope. Just someone who actually read the damn thing and found it useful.
 
There's no need. We're not using a computer from the 70s anymore that can't project a route beyond the first fix outside the center boundary. You could file MBT PANC and the computer would project your route without any issues.

Pilotforhire587 said:
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...
Click to expand...
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that the 200nm guidance in the AIM heralds back to the days when memory in each ARTCCs computer was rather limited and there was a good chance that there was a VOR or airport that wasn't in that center's computer and would kick the flight plan out as a result. Each center's HOST still doesn't contain every fix in the NAS, but today it is generally limited to fixes on approaches (GA pilots that insist on filing to a IAF to their destination airport on the other side of the country tend to throw the computer for a loop every time) and a limited number of navaids (compass locators, terminal VORs).

I only work with very few people who even know such guidance exists, and even fewer that would care enough to raise the issue with a pilot on the frequency. Technically we're not supposed to give shortcuts past the last fix in our center, but it happens thousands of times a day, particularly if it helps to resolve a traffic situation. There are just tons of rules/guidelines on the books that are either written with the worst case scenario in mind, or are just behind the times when it comes to technology in the cockpit or what is available to the controller.
 
Barty said:
I'm going to guess that the 200nm guidance in the AIM heralds back to the days when memory in each ARTCCs computer was rather limited and there was a good chance that there was a VOR or airport that wasn't in that center's computer and would kick the flight plan out as a result. Each center's HOST still doesn't contain every fix in the NAS, but today it is generally limited to fixes on approaches (GA pilots that insist on filing to a IAF to their destination airport on the other side of the country tend to throw the computer for a loop every time) and a limited number of navaids (compass locators, terminal VORs).
Click to expand...
My guess was that it's related to what a lot of IFR rules came from - spottier radar coverage in the past. Your guess sounds pretty good.
 
I almost never file direct around here (we're talking 172/177 type airplanes) due to high min altitudes, but every now and then I'll get direct (or "fly heading 090 direct ABQ when able" when I'm in the older /U bird). As for filing direct, the worst that can happen is that ATC will laugh at you and read you a full route. Around here anyone that can meet the min alts. will *almost* always get direct if they file it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top