radar heading

[wobblyprop]

Can someone tell me if there is something special about this. I've heard pilots saying something along the following lines

London, UK2MD, FL 50 for 70, Radar heading 260.

What is the radar heading part. I've not come across this in any of the aptl stuff. Is it a track heading rather than a compass heading?

Thanks

Wobblyprop

[Genghis the Engineer]

True track (that or I've been doing it wrong for years and nobody noticed).

G

[foghorn]

Wow, I never thought I'd ever be in a position to contradict Genghis, however I am about to.

In the example that you mention, what you're hearing is the first call on a frequency by an aircraft. It is accepted practice under IFR on handover to a new frequency to make the first call with the current level and details of the last clearance. It is even possible that the ATC unit handing over asked them to do this:

"UK2MD report radar heading to London Control on xxx.xx"

it simply means that the aircraft was under radar vectors before handover, and so should report the last vector to the next frequency. Note that on very busy frequencies they ask not to do this for reasons of RT congestion:

"UK2MD contact Heathrow Director on 119.72 with callsign only"

Now, a radar heading is not a true track, it is the magnetic heading that ATC wants you to fly. ATC will apply correction for variation and wind if necessary.

cheers!
foggy

[Fred]

A while ago on a flight into EDI when I had recently got my IMC and had very little IFR experience in CAS I had to ask Scottish control what this meant after he had asked me my heading and said "make that your radar heading". He patiently explained that it was the heading I now had to maintain under the RCS until I was told otherwise. Since then I have found this phrase used very often in CAS but am still surprised that there is no mention of it in CAP 413.

[spekesoftly]

A "radar heading", in the context of the question by wobblyprop, is simply a heading to fly as specified by a radar controller.

[eyeinthesky]

Am I the only one who finds it amazing that two pilots, one of whom is working towards his ATPL and the other who has an IMC rating, are prepared to admit they have no idea what is meant by 'radar heading'? What are your instructors doing? As part of your IMC training were you never given a radar vectored ILS or Surveillance Radar Approach?

If you really do have no idea of the concept then there is something sorely lacking in your training, and you need to ask your instructors what they think they are doing.

It may be however that you have actually been following radar headings without knowing what they are called. They are the bread and butter of ATC these days, and are commonplace. The advantage for us as pilots is that the navigation element is done for us by ATC, but it is easy to relax and lose your situational awareness, and when you get the phrase "Resume own navigation to.." you have no idea where you are! (Although technically we are supposed to give you your position with a "resume own nav" you will find that in the airways environment this is seldom done.)

[wobblyprop]

I can honestly say that i have never been told to report my heading as a radar heading. I've done my IMC and i'm about to start my IR.

Yes, i have been given radar vectors to ILS but thought that this "radar heading" business was something different.

Thanks for all your replies

[PPRuNe Radar]

The phrase 'Radar Heading' is used by a lot of controllers in the UK but is not standard phraseology.

Personally the word 'radar' is an extra one which is not required and not one I use.

[Dogma]

Amazing, pilots that do not know that this instruction means "fly heading....".

Track has little to do with heading. Still wind your Hdg (M) will be your Track (M).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well I'm obviously wrong and have been for years, just as well I earn 90% of my salary as an Engineer.

Can anybody point to the definitive answer in a document somewhere. It must be there?

Last I recall being given it was by an RAF controller diverting me.

Maybe we should cross-post to the ATC forum and see what they mean by it, which is probably the important interpretation.

G

[Miserlou]

I think it's fine people, regardless of experience, question that which they do not fully understand.

What IS amazing is that people ridicule them for it!!!

[Duke of Burgundy]

The Manual of Air Traffic Services Pt 1 does permit us to transfer an aircraft to another ATC unit by using the phrase "report radar heading to (ATC Unit callsign) (frequency...)

The most useful definition I can find at the moment is from CAP413 the RTF Manual which defines radar vectoring as; provision of navigational guidance to aircraft in the form of headings, based on the use of radar.

[wobblyprop]

thanks Miserlou. I was wishing i'd never asked :(

[PPRuNe Radar]

Duke of Burgundy

You are 100% correct for transfer of course. Just that the phraseology doesn't allow you to put them on a 'radar heading' in the first place :D

[vector4fun]

On the West side of the Atlantic, we'd more likely use the terms "Assigned Heading", or simply "Vector". Are those terms not used east of Greenland?:confused:

[Duke of Burgundy]

Pprune Radar - Yes I agree with you. I`m sure the phrase used to be "report heading to " or continue heading ... and contact ATC unit...etc. It seems to be one of these things which has crept in almost unnoticed.
I was, however trying to be helpful to Wobblyprop in the context of the discussion.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Thanks Duke . All useful stuff for our readers.

[eyeinthesky]

Just to be clear: I was not ridiculing the two honest pilots who admitted they did not know what the term meant. I was questioning the standard of instructing which allows these individuals to get this far in their training without preparing them adequately for the environment in which they might (and did in Fred's case) find themselves.

Standard phraseology or not, 'radar heading' is in common use in the UK and is in my opinion clear and concise. Just to tell someone to report their heading to another controller may not make it clear that they are supposed to stay on it. Sure the "Continue on heading and report it to XXX on YYY.YY" is correct but is a lot longer that "Report the radar heading to.."

Sorry if Wobblyprop or Fred were offended, that was not the intention:O

[Lump Jockey]

I posted the same question many months ago in ATC Issues, and "Heathrow Director" replied: A radar heading is a heading which a pilot flies on the instructions of a radar controller and he mustn't change it without reference to that controller. So, I hope this puts your mind at ease!
Lump Jockey!!

[Gerund]

Not strictly on topic, but worth a reminder (?), that radar controllers have NO responsibility for terrain clearance when an aircraft in receipt of a RIS or operating VFR or special VFR accepts radar vectors. Also, a pilot accepting a RAS, although given a terrain clearance, remains RESPONSIBLE for it. Don't forget controllers are human so check terrain clearance yourself on any radar instruction, especially coupled with a descent - a controller making a mistake could really spoil your day!! (The Radar Vectoring Area Charts in the AIP are there for double checking terrain clearance within those areas - so...........does anyone know where they are in the UK AIP??? it says 'at the end of this section', but I'm damned if I can find them in the online AIP :rolleyes: )

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

Radar heading is something experienced daily. In fact I'm hard put to remember a flight when I wasn't on a radar heading at some stage of the proceedings. I too am astonished that people are reaching an advanced stage of their training without understanding this ATC instruction.
Developing this theme, it's also the procedure to report, when coming on a new frequency, if you've been cleared direct to some waypoint by the previous controller, missing out one or more intermediate waypoints.

[Fresca]

vector4fun
Yes you always are a litle bit different on the west side of the pond :D

There it is the only place I fly into where I am supposed to "position and hold" insted of "line up and wait"

We all have our little quirks.

PS. The only stupid question is the one not asked.

[vector4fun]

There it is the only place I fly into where I am supposed to "position and hold" insted of "line up and wait"

Yes, that's been a minor topic over here lately too. I volunteered "Line up and shut up", but my suggestion was discarded early...

:p

[Earthmover]

Steady on chaps! I know wobblyprop and he's a dead keen bright fella struggling for his licences - he is about to start his IR, so he hasn't been in the controlled airspace environment yet, so how about a bit of water-cooling on the harumphs about his instruction. He probably phoned me to ask (he often does) but I've been in the sim.

Bet he does now though! ;)

[PifPaf]

eyeinthesky said that Standard phraseology or not, 'radar heading' is in common use in the UK and is in my opinion clear and concise.
If it's not standard, why blame the two pilot's instructors?!? What if now we become to use, besides "radar heading" in UK, "HSI heading" in Portugal, "compass heading" in Germany, "straight heading" in Canada or any other "heading" around the world?
For me, it just adds confusion. Why not use just heading?!?!?
I do not agree when you say Just to tell someone to report their heading to another controller may not make it clear that they are supposed to stay on it. Under radar vectors, unless you reach a clearance limit (or, of course, for safety reasons), you should maintain your heading - even if you are transfered to another freq. Or am I wrong?
When you suggested to use "report the radar heading to..", why not use "report heading to..."? What's the difference?
Rememeber Tenerife ("hold" x "roll"). It's dangerous to start using non-standard terms - think a little bit on pilots who do not fly so regularly to your country and do not have english as their mother tongue. They are not supposed to know your "common-used-non-standard-phraseology".

PP

[eyeinthesky]

pp:
"When you suggested to use "report the radar heading to..", why not use "report heading to..."? What's the difference?"

The difference is that unless you have previously told them to "Continue on the heading" they might not know that they are restricted.

Just for info:

My MATS Part 1 (which I will admit has not been updated for several years) has the following entry in Appendix E (Phraseology):

Section: Transfer on a Heading

Phraseology "Report radar heading to (ATCU callsign) on (frequency)"

I'm not at work now, and will check the Part 1 (if I can find one) when I do get there, but that seems fairly clear to me.

It may well be that it has since been deleted from the book, but the situation is that many people (such as me) will not be aware of that and old habits die hard.

Just for further illustration, there was a loss of separation a couple of years ago when a controller used standard phraseology:

"Maintain FL320, Lambourne 3A arrival Heathrow".

Unfortunately she suffered from cognitive error and the aircraft was actually at FL340 with one at FL320 underneath. Despite the clear instruction to MAINTAIN a level (i.e. no clearance to CLIMB or DESCEND which have different standard phrases) the pilot used agreed US practice where "MAINTAIN" can mean "CLIMB or DESCEND to and MAINTAIN" and almost wiped out the one beneath him instead of querying the incorrect level.

Standard phraseology did not help then, and if by using 'radar heading' instead of 'heading' I can get my point across clearer, then I will continue to do so. Of course if any such as Wobblyprop or Fred are unsure of the meaning then I will help them out as my colleague in Scotland did.

[Tinstaafl]

"Radar heading" is standard phraseology in Oz.

A 'radar heading' to me is part of radar vectoring. Other headings can be subject to my whim.

[PifPaf]

I honestly can say that I've never heard radar heading before (despite the fact that I would maintain it in the event of changing control).
More important to say is that I deeply think that, unless reaching a clearance limit or for safety reasons (Ok, I know I'm repeating it...), you cannot change your heading when under radar vectors. This would be true if I was told "radar heading" or just "heading". - it doesn't matter for me.
Is it different in UK? Any other member can say anything about other countries (could be under ICAO or FAA rules)?
Best regards,

PP

[Gerund]

I still can't find the Radar Vectoring Area Charts in the UK AIP. With reference to my previous post someone must be able to help - after all, those flying in the UK must be using them every day! Any takers? I don't believe the lack of response is because pilots are accepting descent instructions under radar control without checking terrain clearance themselves?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Spitoon]

Using heading on its own could be misunderstood.

To me a heading is the way the aircraft happens to be pointed and in the absence of other constraints the pilot can alter it to suit his or her navigational needs

A radar heading is a heading assigned by a radar controller and the pilot should not alter it until released from it by a radar controller.

As has been pointed out, the reason for advising that an aircraft is on a radar heading on first contact is because some sectors don't co-ordinate such instructions (and effectively are getting the pilot to do it for them) or because controllers are only human and may simply forget!

[Miserlou]

'Radar Heading' has always irritated me;as mentioned, it's not even standard.

To confirm that you're receiving 'vectors' is an important distinction as the controller is then responsible for obstacle clearance.

Spitoon.
What the controller gives you is a vector, to maintain the present heading.

[Spitoon]

And for Gerund here's the RVA for Aberdeen (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/ad/32PD0501.PDF). No reason for picking Aberdeen - it was just the first on the list. The RVAs are there - are you looking in right site? Oh, and you do have to log in to the site in order to get access to the content so the link may not work directly.

[Hippy]

For eyeinthesky (or any one else):

No need to look at your out of date Pt 1, or search for one at work, just go here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493__Part1.pdf
Caution: It's 2MB.

The bad news: Can't see that what you are seeing is still in Appendix E.

[Gerund]

Spitoon

Many thanks for the reference. I was looking on the right site but was relying on the statement in section 1.6.1 para 6.2.4.2 of the ENR Section of the AIP that the RVAs "appear at the end of this section". Pity they are in the AD Section :* Thanks again.

Miserlou

I see that you are from Denmark/UK. Be very careful about the 'controller being responsible for terrain clearance' when receiving 'radar vectors'. (Althought what 'responsible' means I don't know; does it mean he will get into trouble when you have been flown into a mountain?). Typically, and confusingly, the good old UK has all these strange differences from the world of aviation worldwide and you may be thinking the controller is responsible for your terrain clearance when in fact he is not, even when giving you radar vectors!

If you receive a Radar Advisory Service in the UK the controllers will expect you to accept vectors or level allocations (possibly in IMC), but YOU remain responsible for the terrain clearance.

If you receive a Radar Information Service in the UK the controllers may provide radar vectors but there is no requirement for you to accept the vectors but, even if you do, YOU remain responsible for the terrain clearance.

So what does this mean? It means who cares who is responsible - check your own terrain clearance at all times. It seems that if a controller is responsible for terrain clearance it only means he will be a bit more careful not to lose his job! ;)

[Miserlou]

Gerund.
You're right of course; we're always first on the scene of the accident and its not a matter of who's right but who's left!

That may be a local variation on our part. Our SOP requires a call from PNF when descending below MSA under radar vectors and visual approaches; it increases the situational awareness.

One never takes anything for granted and question all which you don't understand.

[bookworm]

Gerund

I don't know where you get that from. MATS Pt 1 says in Ch 5:


13.1 Controllers are to ensure that levels assigned to:
a) IFR flights in receipt of a radar control service
b) flights in receipt of a radar advisory service and
c) flights in receipt of a radar information service and receiving vectors;
provide adequate terrain clearance for the phase of flight [as shown below].

13.2 Radar controllers have no responsibility for the terrain clearance of, and shall not assign levels to, aircraft:
a) in receipt of a radar information service when not subject to radar vectors or
b) operating SVFR or VFR within controlled airspace which accept radar vectors.


Looks pretty clear to me that when a controller assigns a level to an aircraft on a radar vector or vice versa, the controller takes responsibility for terrain clearance.

[Gerund]

Hi bookworm

I got it from the UK AIP:

ENR 1.6.1 para 3.1 Radar Advisory Service (RAS), subpara 3.1.1 (relating to conditions applying to RAS):

(b) Controllers will expect the pilot to accept vectors or level allocations..............

(g) The pilot remains responsible for terrain clearance..................

Under para 6 relating to Terrain Clearance it states, para 6.2:

Controllers will ensure that levels assigned to IFR flights when in receipt of a Radar Control Service and to flights in receipt of a RAS will provide at least the minimum terrain clearances given below:

ie The controller has a duty to provide terrain clearance in these cases, but the responsibility under a RAS remains with the pilot.

But as I have said before, what the devil does ‘responsibility’ actually mean? It certainly can’t mean that if the controller accepts ‘responsibility’ then the pilot can accept vectors and/or levels without checking himself. After all, all pilots accepting radar vectors and level assignments will check there is no conflict with the MSAs, MEAs outside radar vectoring areas, and within them will check the RVA chart. Or I certainly hope so!! A controller making a mistake .......................??

I know England is fairly flat (even though some masts can get pretty high in some RVAs), but consider approaching Cape Town International (at an elevation of 151 ft) on radial 120. The Radar Terrrain Clearance (RSA terminology) Chart gives you 1,000ft terrain clearance at 8,500ft at 16 dme. Clearance down to 6,500ft at 20 dme on a vector might sound reasonable – how nice to have checked, even if the controller is ‘responsible’!!
:eek:

So, if anyone would like to suggest what 'responsible', in this context, might mean I would love to know.:D

[Genghis the Engineer]

I tend to the gross generalisation that a controller is responsible for not getting me lost and for keeping me away from other controlled traffic. Not flying into anything bolted down, I've always regarded as my own responsibility, as is not hitting uncontrolled traffic outside controlled airspace.

Probably not the exact wording in the AIP, but works for me.

G

[Gerund]

Genghis

Fair enough! ;)

These threads can go on a bit, but it is sometimes fun to discuss the minutiae. Keeps the brain cells active and makes sure the various books don't gather too much dust.

Happy flying!

[bookworm]

Gerund

Quite so -- I should have checked the source you cited!

I wonder if there are occasions on which this apparent doubling up of responsibility might cause issues. I don't think you're splitting hairs here -- accidents get caused by different interpretations of minutiae.

For what it's worth, pilots are not absolved of their Rule 29 responsibility for terrain clearance under IFR even when flying in controlled airspace. Is that what it's getting at?

[Miserlou]

Happens to me several times a week. Typically told to descend to 1500' where the MSA is 1500, 1700 or 2100 for a short approach.

You can't do it without radar vector of course but it is kosher. Your approach chart depicts the obstructions.

And Denmark is rather flatter than England. Oh, for her rolling hills, her sweeping swallows.....and her playful sheep!

[break dancer]

What about when you have a case of parallel runway ops and you are told to maintain runway heading? I guess that both runways would suffer from the same amount of drift, but some people fly the runway track to already allow for drift. Any thoughts out there from the learnered?

[Duke of Burgundy]

break dancer - in the UK the phrase "maintain runway heading " shouldn`t be used. The correct phrase these days is "climb straight ahead" or "climb heading ...".

"Straight ahead" means, when used in a departure clearance, "track runway extended centre line" and in a Missed Approach Procedure "continue on Final Approach Track".

[mad_jock]

I know it doesn't help the discussion much but I wasn't taught a definate definition for radar heading either.

The instruction of Radar heading conjured up 2 responces from me. during training.

1. Oh f*ck where is this b*satrd going to dump me after saving my life.

2. Thank christ for that only the ILs to go and a circle to land and we are finished.

In the IR training manuals i have read, about 3 schools worth it is never mentioned.

I presumed it is so that the next controller didn't have to start from scratch when working out how much drift you had on. And it let the next controller know that you were on an assigned heading which you would not deviate from unless told otherwise.
If i was freecalling a radar unit under my own navigation i would use Heading.

BTW i think these sort of threads are great for sorting questions out.

During my IR training i was told that HUM would except me at FL50 into the hold. Great i thought and all happy continued down the airway. I then got bollocked on the RT for not decending out the airway and direct track HUM.
That night in chat luckly there were a few ATCO's lurking and after they stopped talking about beer and the other sex. I was put straight that this wasn't the way to clear someone to descend out of the airway.

I know i have learn't alot from threads in the ATC forum, don't come down to hard on us low houred Pilots asking questions if we don't know. CAP 413 is used as a bible at most schools so if it isn't in that, most trainee IR's etc will have to guess what your on about.

MJ

PS Gengis i wouldn't trust them not to get me lost. Once they have finished vectoring us around the traffic I think they have aquitted themselves most splendily. Bit much to expect them to make sure we know where we are. I always try and make sure i know where i am all the time then 2 of us are trying to avoid ground instead of just 1.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fair point Jock, but...

- workload does occasionally lead to slight uncertainty over location.
- "Resume own navigation", could readily be replaced by "Resume own navigation, you are 5 miles SW southampton". Now that would qualify for the term "service".

I read through CAP 413 last night in a fit of boredom, no sign anywhere of the term "Radar Heading".

G

[mad_jock]

I know where your coming from G

But unfortunatly I think you are presuming that everyone has the same high standards of airmanship as yourself. And your slight uncertainty some would aspire to normally.

I have seen quite a few students when given vectors virtually ignore their chart until the dreaded "Resume your own navigation" yes it would be nice if they gave you a position as well, but RT clutter busy workload might not allow this.

Although I must admit I have been bitten once by my poor airmanship not keeping note of my position, time turned on to vector etc. I will not be repeating the exercise.

MJ

[bookworm]

madjock

While it is undoubtedly prudent for a pilot to maintain positional awareness at all times, ATC has responsibilities after vecotring. MATS Pt 1 offers the following options of phraseology.

Resume own navigation for (significant point). Position is (distance) miles N/E/S/W of (reporting point).

Resume own navigation for (significant point) magnetic track (three digits) degrees, distance (number) miles.

"Resume own navigation for (significant point), figure out where that is for yourself" doesn't appear on the list. :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm glad you only suggested that I aspire to those standards of airmanship, I'd never claim to achieve them consistently.

G

[Miserlou]

I thought they were required to inform you of your position after a spell of vectoring, but that may be VFR only.

Incidentally, I got a clearance yesterday "XXX you're cleared abeam Michaelsdorf."

So I quickly found a point that looked like 'abeam' somewhere around MIC-AMICH and read back "Confirm cleared AMICH-MIC."

Reply "Negative, you're cleared Abeam MiC".

So I said, "Do you mean we can go direct Codan but you can only clear us as to position abeam MIC?"

"XXX maintain present routing, I'll pass your request on to the next sector."

What request? Well, we stared at each other and couldn't figure out what this guy was on.

We were flying north towards Hamburg and waiting for the usual direct Codan. We weren't going past MIC or even cleared to a position beyond MIC so how the hell could we go to abeam MIC? Which abeam? North, south, east? How far abeam?

We pressed him again for an answer saying that we didn't understand what he said before Michaelsdorf and please would he spell it but got told to stand-by.

His next response was "XXX contact Bremen on 125.85".

Curiouser and curiouser!

[Genghis the Engineer]

The LARS controller at Solent Radar occasionally has similar brainstorms. "Report Abeam Romsey" is a favourite if my route is at the nearest 10 miles from Romsey (ditto Stoney Cross) and I'm flying at 1500 ft so little or no chance of seeing it. Another is "report leaving my airspace", which is always slightly confusing since there invariably isn't a convenient landmark at the edge of his airspace on the route I'm taking.

But I can't recall their ever giving me a "radar heading" at-least.

G

(And before anybody tells me off, IMHO Solent Radar is the best and most helpful LARS in the South of England, I am commenting not criticising).

[eyeinthesky]

Genghis:

Bear in mind that Romsey / Stoney Cross / Totton etc may well be marked on the controller's Radar Video Map and as such are obvious to him and give him ready reference of your position with regard to the bits that matter to him. I suppose it's up to you to decide where you are in relation to those points, or offer alternatives which might have more meaning to you. He will probably then be able to do the calculations for himself.

As others have said, it's good to get an appreciation of each other's issues and views..

[Hippy]

Incidentally, I got a clearance yesterday "XXX you're cleared abeam Michaelsdorf."

Just a stab in the dark, is there maybe a reporting point called "Abm MIC", similar to the rather strange "Abm HON", SW of EGBB or maybe "Abeam Michaelsdorf" is a local way of saying AMICH.

[eyeinthesky]

I've eventually got around to checking one of the (very few) paper copies of the MATS Pt 1 at LACC. The update is no 56, 31/1/03

In Appendix E (Attach) page 11 (the phraseology section for those not familiar with these documents) I find the following:

Standard Phrases:

Transfer on a heading: Report radar heading to (ATCU callsign) (frequency)

Seems fairly clear to me.;)