CLRED 'DIRECT TO RWY 22L' WHILE IN VMC ON AN IFR FLT PLAN TO MHR; FLT CREW OF H25B UNILATERALLY DETERMINED IT WAS OK TO GO DIRECT TO THE FAF INSTEAD; WERE CHASTISE BY NCT APCH CTLR FOR RESULTING TRACK DEV.

Narrative

HOW THE PROB AROSE: ON DSCNT INTO THE SACRAMENTO (MHR) AIRFIELD; WE WERE PREPARING FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 22L (BACKED UP BY GPS/LOC/GS). I (PF) SELECTED THE FMS TO FLY DIRECT TO THE FINAL APCH FIX (FAF) 'GADBE.' A 3 DEG R TURN FROM OUR PRESENT LOCATION AND PRESENT TRACK TO RWY 22L; OUR LAST ASSIGNED DIRECT TO ATC CLRNC. PASSING THROUGH 13000 FT FOR 9000 FT NORCAL APCH CTLR ASKED US TO CONFIRM OUR TRACK. I STATED HONESTLY THAT ALTHOUGH I WAS PREVIOUSLY CLRED DIRECT TO RWY 22L AND BEING IFR AND NOT VFR ON THIS PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE FLT; I OPTED IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY TO FLY DIRECT TO GADBE. NOT SEEING AN ISSUE WITH THIS; AS 'GADBE' WAS ONLY 5 NM FROM RWY 22L. NORCAL APCH RECLRED US TO LEVEL AT 12000 FT FOR A MIN BEFORE DSNDING ONTO THE VISUAL FOR RWY 22L (WHICH WE DID) AND THE CTLR STATED THAT FOR THEIR PLANNING PURPOSES AND COORD WITH LOWER ALT CTLRS; THAT WE ADVISE THEM OF THESE ACTIONS (DEV FROM WAYPOINT 'CLRED TO'). AS SMALL AS IT MAY BE OR IT MAY SEEM; IN THE FUTURE. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: THE FAILURE OF THE PF TO PROPERLY ADVISE THE CTLR OF OUR ACTIONS AND RECEIVE A NEWLY REVISED DIRECT TO CLRNC TO RWY 22L VIA 'GADBE.' THE COMPLACENCY OF THE PF TO ASSUME THAT A DIRECT TO 'GADBE' WITHOUT CTLR NOTIFICATION WAS ACCEPTABLE; AND WITHOUT POSSIBLE CONFLICTS. HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED: CTLR'S QUESTIONING AS TO OUR IFR NOT VFR STATUS.