Narrative:

Filed pih direct boy. Upon passing overhead pih, had difficulty establishing outbound on 062B degree radial due to wind. Requested radar vector to boy from ZLC (frequency 128.35). Controller responded 'negative.' we were confused by the response. I thought the controller may have thought we were requesting a vector further down the road on our flight plan, so I explained our navigation situation to him. He then stated 'why do you guys file for something you can't fly?' he then said 'fly a 060 degree heading.' I believe this misunderstanding emanates from the proliference of glass cockpits and RNAV. More recently qualified controllers, I believe, are ignorant of the limitations of VOR equipped aircraft and their lack of precision in comparison to glass cockpits and RNAV. Eventually, we could have established ourselves outbound on the proper radial with the correct wind correction angle, but I thought a vector from the controller was the more expeditious and therefore safest alternative to avoiding any conflicting traffic. Supplemental information from acn 497140: as we passed the pih VOR, as the PNF, I checked the time and fuel on the flight plan and noticed we were not yet receiving boysen reservoir (boy), the next flight plan point. We were filed direct, so I looked at the flight plan, but was sure initially which heading was for boy, the 062 degree or 088 degree radial. I showed it to the PF (captain) and he decided it was the 088 degree radial. After I unfolded my chart, I noticed that 088 degree course was J54, and went south of boy. I told the captain that I thought it was 062 degrees to boy, so he had me ask for a vector. ZLC replied with 'negative.' the captain then asked for a vector, T which ZLC replied 'why did you file something you can't fly? Fly heading 060 degrees.' this took approximately 20 NM out the 088 degree radial, or about 8 NM off course. The problem was that we misread our flight plan. We figured it out in time, but was denied help when we asked for it. The 088 degree course was 'to' pih, not 'from' it. Unlike some military charts, the commercial chart doesn't include a compass rose around VOR stations, which makes it more difficult to tell if you are heading out the right direction (although in this case J54 was exactly the heading we were on, but was well south of our course). Additionally, once we were off our intended route, we had few options to truly proceed direct boy, without help. I don't think that any big changes should be made to the correct ATC/navigation system as most aircraft now have FMS, GPS, or some form of RNAV capability, and those that don't will be short lived. All I would ask is that ATC would have some compassion for those of us still navigating on vors trying to figure out what direction to turn, what the winds are doing, etc.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B727 CREW ENCOUNTERED AN ARTCC RADAR CTLR WITH AN EXTREMELY SURLY ATTITUDE IN ZLC CLASS A AIRSPACE.

Narrative: FILED PIH DIRECT BOY. UPON PASSING OVERHEAD PIH, HAD DIFFICULTY ESTABLISHING OUTBOUND ON 062B DEG RADIAL DUE TO WIND. REQUESTED RADAR VECTOR TO BOY FROM ZLC (FREQ 128.35). CTLR RESPONDED 'NEGATIVE.' WE WERE CONFUSED BY THE RESPONSE. I THOUGHT THE CTLR MAY HAVE THOUGHT WE WERE REQUESTING A VECTOR FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD ON OUR FLT PLAN, SO I EXPLAINED OUR NAV SIT TO HIM. HE THEN STATED 'WHY DO YOU GUYS FILE FOR SOMETHING YOU CAN'T FLY?' HE THEN SAID 'FLY A 060 DEG HDG.' I BELIEVE THIS MISUNDERSTANDING EMANATES FROM THE PROLIFERENCE OF GLASS COCKPITS AND RNAV. MORE RECENTLY QUALIFIED CTLRS, I BELIEVE, ARE IGNORANT OF THE LIMITATIONS OF VOR EQUIPPED ACFT AND THEIR LACK OF PRECISION IN COMPARISON TO GLASS COCKPITS AND RNAV. EVENTUALLY, WE COULD HAVE ESTABLISHED OURSELVES OUTBOUND ON THE PROPER RADIAL WITH THE CORRECT WIND CORRECTION ANGLE, BUT I THOUGHT A VECTOR FROM THE CTLR WAS THE MORE EXPEDITIOUS AND THEREFORE SAFEST ALTERNATIVE TO AVOIDING ANY CONFLICTING TFC. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 497140: AS WE PASSED THE PIH VOR, AS THE PNF, I CHKED THE TIME AND FUEL ON THE FLT PLAN AND NOTICED WE WERE NOT YET RECEIVING BOYSEN RESERVOIR (BOY), THE NEXT FLT PLAN POINT. WE WERE FILED DIRECT, SO I LOOKED AT THE FLT PLAN, BUT WAS SURE INITIALLY WHICH HDG WAS FOR BOY, THE 062 DEG OR 088 DEG RADIAL. I SHOWED IT TO THE PF (CAPT) AND HE DECIDED IT WAS THE 088 DEG RADIAL. AFTER I UNFOLDED MY CHART, I NOTICED THAT 088 DEG COURSE WAS J54, AND WENT S OF BOY. I TOLD THE CAPT THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS 062 DEGS TO BOY, SO HE HAD ME ASK FOR A VECTOR. ZLC REPLIED WITH 'NEGATIVE.' THE CAPT THEN ASKED FOR A VECTOR, T WHICH ZLC REPLIED 'WHY DID YOU FILE SOMETHING YOU CAN'T FLY? FLY HDG 060 DEGS.' THIS TOOK APPROX 20 NM OUT THE 088 DEG RADIAL, OR ABOUT 8 NM OFF COURSE. THE PROB WAS THAT WE MISREAD OUR FLT PLAN. WE FIGURED IT OUT IN TIME, BUT WAS DENIED HELP WHEN WE ASKED FOR IT. THE 088 DEG COURSE WAS 'TO' PIH, NOT 'FROM' IT. UNLIKE SOME MIL CHARTS, THE COMMERCIAL CHART DOESN'T INCLUDE A COMPASS ROSE AROUND VOR STATIONS, WHICH MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO TELL IF YOU ARE HDG OUT THE RIGHT DIRECTION (ALTHOUGH IN THIS CASE J54 WAS EXACTLY THE HDG WE WERE ON, BUT WAS WELL S OF OUR COURSE). ADDITIONALLY, ONCE WE WERE OFF OUR INTENDED RTE, WE HAD FEW OPTIONS TO TRULY PROCEED DIRECT BOY, WITHOUT HELP. I DON'T THINK THAT ANY BIG CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE TO THE CORRECT ATC/NAV SYS AS MOST ACFT NOW HAVE FMS, GPS, OR SOME FORM OF RNAV CAPABILITY, AND THOSE THAT DON'T WILL BE SHORT LIVED. ALL I WOULD ASK IS THAT ATC WOULD HAVE SOME COMPASSION FOR THOSE OF US STILL NAVING ON VORS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DIRECTION TO TURN, WHAT THE WINDS ARE DOING, ETC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.