So, this topic continues and clearly shows that PPRuNe is a formidable medium for discussing Flight Safety. Really folks, this is an important thread, even if the actual incidence of this confusion only crops up occasionally, or in specific locations. To begin, some explanation to those interested:
For the benefit of those who do not operate within the USA's
area of influence, TERPS is an acronym of
Terminal (&)
En Route ProcedureS. It is, broadly speaking, the FAA version of ICAO Doc 8168 PANS-OPS, to which the USA is full a signatory as with all things ICAO. It is a common misunderstanding amongst aviators that, because the USA is one of the few nations still using
Imperial measurement in aviation, a few variations in R/T terminology, and publishes FARs, it is somehow non-compliant with ICAO. This is not the case. ICAO states the permissable units of measurement, and includes those used by the most aviation-orientated nation on earth, as it does the metric flight levels applied in such areas as Russia, etc. It also requires signatory nations to publish an AIP and state any differences from those of ICAO in that document. The USA's AIP is called FAR.
In 32 years of flying in and out of the USA and her
dominions 
, I have never been aware of any FAR criteria that do not either equal or exceed those agreed by ICAO. Indeed the nation that is also the world's most litigious-orientated nation probably reviews its air-regs more openly and honestly than any other. Hence
Voidhawk's post and reference above (
Ivan,
www.faa.gov/ ). A misinterpretaion was observed and subsequently clarified. Runway markings (
Dan W )
do conform by the way (glad you're enjoying it, BTW).
Indeed the FAA periodically publishes a league table of nations specifically subjected to their "
compliance with ICAO standards". This in itself contradicts any idea that the USA is not somehow ICAO-compliant. Each ICAO nation, or group of nations, has its own legislation incorporated in its AIP and from which the various publishing sources derive their charts and supplements. Without these, flight planning for an international flight would require several hours and a massive library in the Flight Planning Room - although I do remember a time and place when there was one!
Final points:
1. Great care should be taken when using FMC databases for departure, and the paper chart (or equivalent) should always be referred to as definitive, and queried if in doubt. Where a SID calls for "
maintain runway heading", the FMC often draws the RWY centreline track into outer space. As discussed above, this is not the correct ICAO intent, but has been programmed manually into the system by an operator who may not realise the implications. Beware and
report.
2. If anyone ever experiences an active anomaly in the interpretation of
Heading and
Track report it immediately under the reference I quoted in my earlier post. Controllers and authorities, in whatever part of the world, really don't want or intend to be confusing. It may just be a case of folklore, as illustrated by a few aviators on this thread, or a question of first language, possibly as in
muppet's case at the start of this thread.
3.
Ivan, if what you say is true about Japanese SIDs stating "
climb on runway heading" to mean
Track, I have no doubt that the JCAB would be mortified, but grateful, to know of the
error as they are one of the most fastidious applicants of the ICAO rules.
In the most safety-conscious industry on earth Flight Safety will never reach its zenith. Every anomaly reported and corrected is a potential accident avoided.