IFR Flightplan: Airport Direct vs IAF

[Talan2000]

After 20+ years, and a PE I-11 rating , I figured it was time to finish my instrument rating. That said...

TLDR: Is it now common/appropriate/acceptable to file airport to airport direct without listing a terminating IAF from which an approach may be commenced at the destination?

I was taught long ago to ALWAYS file to a fix from which you could shoot an approach if lost comms.This has been supported by my experiences in SOCAL on PE.

However, I have recently discovered that it is common to file airport to airport DIRECT flightplans. I read a rant here against doing that (http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/185690-1.html) but it sure SEEMS that pilots are doing it routinely and it's being accepted if not even becoming the default.

The specific example for me is in my local operating area -- KADS to KTKI is 23nm. Rather than filing a SID out of KADS to get to KTKI (which is wholly insane), fltplan.com shows the most common filing is DIRECT or even ONEME (which is an IF for a GPS approach -- not event the IAF. (How does that work?). This is sort of making me crazy. My inclination would be to file to an IAF -- most likely the ILS 18 IAF (VLY for ils18 or TACKE GPS 36) for the route. That's it.

I don't want to be a stick in the mud or use superseded techniques in the airspace. And I've read the AIM ch 5, which seems to indicate airport to airport is ok for RNAV (gps?).

Don't want to overthink it, but would like to hear other RW thoughts - especially for a short hop like KADS-KTKI.

Thanks

Todd

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1605/pdf/06644R36.PDF GPS 36
https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1605/pdf/06644IL18.PDF ILS 18

[Keith Smith]

If it's vmc, you're going to go direct to the airport at some point. If it's imc, you'll get vectors to final or direct to the iaf or IF. I wouldn't sweat it especially on such a short route.

[Talan2000]

Ok, thanks for the feedback. Direct seems to be the way of the future, lost comms or no lost comms, so I won't worry about it VMC for sure, even though if it's hard imc, I probably won't be able to resist filing with the IAF to the ILS instead of just Direct.

[NameCoin]

I'd also like to point out that there are some TEC routes in Southern California that terminate at a waypoint that does not correspond to an IAF for any of its approaches. For example, many TEC routes into KMYF terminate at MZB, where no approach starts. My opinion is don't sweat "direct" if that's what you get, but you should always have a plan for what you would do in the event of an emergency or lost communications.

[Keith Smith]

That's correct, and that's because the TEC routes are area specific and not airport specific.

Talan, my point wasn't to talk you out of filing an IAF in the route (this assumes you know which approach you want to fly in advance, sometimes that's possible, sometimes it's not). However, I wouldn't be too concerned if you're cleared for a route on the ground which doesn't include an IAF. In the non lost-comms case, you can negotiate direct to the IAF or IF for a straight-in RNAV approach as a matter of normal, daily operations. For non-RNAV approaches and/or non-RNAV aircraft, vectors to final are more common. For the lost-comms case, do you what you need to do. The reality is that ATC is going to give you a very wide berth at the destination airport if it's IMC. For lost comms, the rules allow you to eventually proceed to a fix from which an approach can be conducted, even if it wasn't in the original clearance, so not having the IAF in the initial clearance that you receive from the clearance delivery controller shouldn't be a huge source of concern.

FWIW, I used to be somewhat obsessed with trying to get an IAF into the filed (and cleared) route until I realized the logic outlined above.

[Ryan B]

Maybe in an area that's typically non radar (far between radar sites) but direct is almost all I see nowadays.

[Talan2000]

Keith,

Thanks. Yes, I guess I too was kind of obsessed with getting a clearance containing an IAF -- to not do so seemed to be cutting corners. But I think you are correct that in today's world, and how operations are routinely executed, that it isn't necessary or expected. (And as an aside, I wouldn't have thought filing to an IF would have been kosher either - but obviously it is, and in my own example from KADS - KTKI it shows up on fltplan.com for flights looking for the GPS 36 approach). So I guess the new motto is "Keep Calm and File Direct"