Direct To

[veneratio]

It means fly direct to the VOR.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Your instrument rated flying 414's and you don't know this?

You're a private pilot with SEL - IFR ratings, yet have ATP listed.

ALIMBO, I lost a lot of respect for you after you changed your profile to reflect an ATP certificate.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Normally it's the VOR, but if there's any confusion, you ask. Period.

When a controller gives you a "Direct To" Are they talking about the airport of to the VOR. For example, a controller says,"Fly direct to LAX." In this case, it wouldn't matter because LAX VOR and the airport are co-located. However, what about when the VOR and destination airport have the same name but are located miles apart. Also, any controllers reading this, please note, it would help pilots out if specify airport or VORs in your clearances.

 

[ALIMBO]

You're a private pilot with SEL - IFR ratings, yet have ATP listed.

ALIMBO, I lost a lot of respect for you after you changed your profile to reflect an ATP certificate.

Comm asel to be exact.

 

[SSDD]

It means fly direct to the VOR.

Not necessarily. What if the VOR is not part of your filed flight plan? You could be filed from your last enroute fix, direct to the airport.

 

[cl_robster2481]

Not necessarily. What if the VOR is not part of your filed flight plan? You could be filed from your last enroute fix, direct to the airport.

This would be good if you are in VMC. What you described is a reroute and your old flight plan is then out the window. The reason for an IFR flight plan is if you loose radio contact you have a plan. So if you are cleared dirct to ABQ VOR then KABQ and you loose communication you can navigate to the VOR in IMC and do the published procedure. However it would be hard to fly direct to that particular airport in IMC.

 

[SSDD]

Well if the controller issues a reroute then, as you stated, they'd have to say direct to the vor then the airport. That does not seem to be the case in this situation, besides, there are many cases where there is no published transition from the vor to the approach. Its all predicated on radar vectors.

 

[satpak77]

if in doubt, ask ATC

with that said, lets look at the FAR's

Sec. 91.181 - Course to be flown.
Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within controlled airspace under IFR except as follows:
(a) On a Federal airway, along the centerline of that airway.
(b) On any other route, along the direct course between the navigational aids or fixes defining that route. However, this section does not prohibit maneuvering the aircraft to pass well clear of other air traffic or the maneuvering of the aircraft in VFR conditions to clear the intended flight path both before and during climb or descent.

The Embry Riddle, FAA Inspector checkride answer is the above. "Direct Lima Alpha X-Ray" is not Direct KLAX

If ATC says "cleared direct...." they mean navaid or fix unless otherwise stated. In most cases they will say "VOR" or "Airport" because this question does indeed rear its head again and again

 

[Singlecoil]

This would be good if you are in VMC. What you described is a reroute and your old flight plan is then out the window. The reason for an IFR flight plan is if you loose radio contact you have a plan. So if you are cleared dirct to ABQ VOR then KABQ and you loose communication you can navigate to the VOR in IMC and do the published procedure. However it would be hard to fly direct to that particular airport in IMC.

First of all, if you loose radio contact, you should have tied it tighter. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Well, I would say the reason for an IFR flight plan is to be able to get an IFR clearance. My ATP examiner was an old Air Force guy that never flew commercially. He tore me a new one for filing an IFR flight plan that didn't include an IAF for the destination airport. In this case, that meant a fix on a ten DME arc on the other side of the field from which we were arriving. I kind of said whatever and did what he wanted. Then when flying, ATC had to ask why we had filed like we did, did we really want to go all the way over there, etc.
In the commercial (real) world, you never do that. You file via the most expeditious means because time is money.
If in the million to one case that you lose all comms, i.e. cannot transmit or receive, then it is pretty simple. The airspace is yours. Hold at your clearance limit until your ETA, then you can proceed direct to the IAF and do whatever approach you feel is appropriate. It is not like ATC is wringing their hands and screaming, "What is he going to DO?!?" They know you will find the ground, hopefully before you run out of fuel. They will be holding IFR arrivals and departures until you call someone on the phone or the tower (if applicable) gets a visual on you.
When we file IFR into Seattle or LAX, we file arrivals that terminate in a heading. What if we lose comms? Do we panic and keep going in a straight line until we run out of fuel? No, you enter a hold at the last fix on the arrival until your ETA (departure time plus ETE), then proceed to an IAF and due a full procedure approach.