When is a heading...

[Man Flex]

A question for approach and area controllers...

When is a heading a "Radar Heading"?

What phraseology would one use and in what circumstances would one be asked to "report your heading"?

[Gonzo]

Uh oh...................................

Man Flex, this topic comes up once every few months.

Perhaps a search through some old threads would bring up some answers. :ok:

[Pierre Argh]

At the risk of taking the bait... what other sort of heading do you think there is?... The Grab-a-handful heading, or maybe the "I'll-Make-it-up-as-I-go heading?

ATC is done procedurally or with radar (OK with a bit of overlap)... but the idea that someone could allocate a heading when controlling without using radar information is, sorry, laughable?

[stillin1]

Been done to death before - try search facility:ok:

[ATCO1962]

......but I still like, "Under radar control, fly heading XXX" No ambiguity there!!

[Man Flex]

Ok chaps. Have done a "search" and having spent a good half hour trying to find the answer to my question I feel the need to elaborate...

Aircraft was given instruction "direct to XXX then YYY, report your heading when established". Heading was read back. Nothing further was communicated by ATC. There was then some confusion amongst the crew as to whether they were on a "radar heading". Approaching XXX, the crew queried this and were cleared direct YYY.

The answer to the confusion may (with hindsight) be obvious but the fact that there was confusion on the flight deck prompted the original question.

[Gonzo]

Not being a radar bod, it seems to me that the ATCO was merely trying to gauge the wind at altitude? If you weren't told to 'continue present heading' or 'fly heading' then you were still on own nav.

[DFC]

but the idea that someone could allocate a heading when controlling without using radar information is, sorry, laughable?

You are too young then to remember the QGH or using VDF to separate departures.

No Radar just a pudding bowl with a line jumping round.

Must be time to have a Museum of ATC where they can take the young guys! :ok:

Regards,

DFC

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<but the idea that someone could allocate a heading when controlling without using radar information is, sorry, laughable?>>

Not laughable at all and I've done it many times to separate a go-around from a departure on a parallel runway. No radar involved, just straightforward Air Traffic Control to prevent a nasty...

[Gary Lager]

OK - quick poll: if you ATCOs tell an aircraft to turn left/right by a certain number of degrees, do you expect a readback of the new heading without asking for it?

how about if bloggs reads back 'new' heading, 'helpfully' rounded to nearest 5 degrees?

And why the difference in styles between the "What's your heading? OK turn new heading xxx degrees" and "turn left 15 degrees and report the heading"

the latter seems to be better from an RT loading PoV, you get the heading change you want AND we do the maths for you.

So any particular reason why one or the other? Just personal preference or is there more to it?

[jovica]

Gary Lager

Generally, when you (I mean, we) ask for a heading, prior vectoring, that may mean couple of things. First, when making opposite/same direction - parallel track you need to know heading in order to do it (second A/C may get “Fly heading XXX”), when you need to know the drift angle in order to vector properly, or when you want to be precise.

OK - quick poll: if you ATCOs tell an aircraft to turn left/right by a certain number of degrees, do you expect a readback of the new heading without asking for it?
I cannot answer to that question because according to the rules in Serbia, we are NOT allowed to vector without prior asking for the heading, apart of track adjustment, non gyro radar vectoring and using the phrase “Fly heading XXX”.
Anyway, using “turn left/right by XX degrees” is, from my point of view, more guessing or assuming than vectoring. No need for that, unless, you ran out of time and/or options.

I\'ve made a mistake.
We are not allowed to vector without prior asking for the heading, apart of track adjustment, non gyro radar vectoring and avoiding actions. Sorry about that.

[DirtyPierre]

Not laughable at all and I've done it many times to separate a go-around from a departure on a parallel runway. No radar involved, Only headings I give are based on radar. So what headings were you using old man?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Only headings I give are based on radar. So what headings were you using old man?>>

Headings out of my head - I don't need a radar to determine which direction I want an aircraft to fly in an urgent situation. Example.. Northbound departure lifts off runway 27L as one goes-around on 27R. I instruct the departure to fly a heading to prevent it from turning towards the go-around and then get some vertical separation organised. That's NOT a "radar heading" - that's simply an instruction to a pilot to steer his aeroplane in a particular direction to prevent an incident. I used that technique all my working life - including at two units where there was no radar equipment! Also, as mentioned earlier, I used QGH procedures extensively at one unit where there was no radar and issued headings to aircraft all day long!!

Maybe controllers nowadays are not allowed to use initiative?

[Gonzo]

HD, we were still doing that yesterday......... :ok:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<HD, we were still doing that yesterday......... >>

Precisely.. and I sincerely trust that nobody working there needs to look at a radar screen to work out headings!!

[Spitoon]

With the greatest of respect to Gonzo and HD I think that putting a go around on a heading without the use of radar (whether a 'proper' radar or a modern Aerodrome Traffic Monitor) may be a Heathrow specific thing. Having worked at a good many UK airports it's not something that I have ever been taught to do and there's certainly never been anything in the local ATC instructions that let me do it.

For what it's worth, my personal view is that putting an aircraft on a heading without radar is not a good idea. Firstly, we regularly see arguments on Pprune about whether the word radar is redundant in ATC instructions so therea are obviously a fair number of people who assume that any heading instruction issued by ATC is based on the use of radar. Secondly, another thread that crops up here is who's responsible for assuring terrain clearance and the general answer is that it's the commander of the aircraft except when the aircraft is on a ATC instructed heading.

This second topic is a bit of a grey areas in some respects - in situations like that Man Flex describes at the top of this thread where the aircraft is under radar control but is cleared or instructed to go direct somewhere it's debatable whether it's on a heading in the traditional ATC sense.

[divingduck]

Man Flex...

You may well have been the first aircraft of the morning...the controller wants to know the "heading de Jour".

Also may have had another aircraft that he was going to parallel?

Loads of reasons.

If he wanted to know the "drift" surely it would have been easier to just ask the spot wind?


Ps, we used to use diversion radials off VOR's and headings off NDB back in the dark old days of Oz procedural control, so DP it did used to happen!!:p

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Spitoon - the other places I have issued headings to aircraft without radar were a UK airport northwest of London, where I worked in 1971 and at an international airport in Africa where I worked in the 60s. How else does one get a pilot to fly in the direction one wants? At the UK place at weekends I often experienced PPLs on solo x-country flights and various other aircraft needing help with navigation. I have stood in the tower there and talked someone round the circuit by giving him headings to fly! I've also talked a pilot towards the airfield by using binoculars and telling him headings to fly. What else can one do? Say "turn left a bit"? There are many, many situations not covered by "The Book" where controllers use their initiative to provide a service. I'm sure the old MATS Pt 1 included a note to that effect but maybe nowadays controllers are prevented from doing so, which is sad.

[Ziggy]

Gonzo

<<If you weren't told to 'continue present heading' or 'fly heading' then you were still on own nav.>>

Yes......unless you're talking to a French controller.


Check out the second part of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=187789

[bookworm]

I think there's a key point in here about some phraseology leading to ambiguity. In effect there are two lateral modes for an aircraft under an ATC service: maintain a heading mode, or own navigation, in which the aircraft is free to make heading changes to maintain track. The aircraft needs to know what mode is agreed.

Consider some of the following:

1 "Turn left 30 degrees and maintain that heading"
Clearly maintain a heading mode

2 "Turn left 30 degrees and make that a radar heading"
OK, we don't like the phraseology, but still clearly maintain a heading mode

3 "Turn left 30 degrees and report your heading"
Probably still maintain a heading mode, but less obvious, I think.

4 "Own navigation direct XYZ"
Clearly own navigation mode.

5 "Route direct XYZ"
Still probably own navigation, yes?

6 "Route direct XYZ and report your heading"
Er. Well by analogy with 3 we're in maintain a heading mode. By analogy with 5 we're in own navigation mode.

So in case 6, if I find myself diverging from direct track on that heading, do I turn to maintain the direct track or do I maintain the heading I read to you?

[mad_jock]

I have been put on a heading by Man tower departing 24L and a go around on 24R has occured.

who's responsible for assuring terrain clearance and the general answer is that it's the commander of the aircraft except when the aircraft is on a ATC instructed heading.

I would disagree with that. Commanders and FO are responsible at all times for terrain clearance. When under a heading the ATCO shares that responsibility. The commander is never ever not responsible for thier aircrafts safety. Thats why we have a MSA call when passing it and brief the radar approach plate / local procedural let down.

Discussions do occur though when for example you get told to decend you below MSA outside the plate zone using there local radar chart and the key hole thing. Which i had never heard about in training. My tendency is to stay above MSA in unknown territory until we are on the plates and can be 100% sure that we were going to miss the granite. In VMC of course its not an issue.

Must admit if I get asked to report my heading I would tend to assume it was a vector. And stick to it. And if nothing heard with a couple of miles to run to the waypoint would get clarification as Man flex has stated. And when cleared presume that the controller had forgotten about us while dealing with the other traffic, which is no problem at all.

The only worry point for me would be if you got told direct and report to the end of the star (with a condition not to procced without ATC clearance on the plate) my tendency would be to take up the hold is this right?

MJ

[Gonzo]

Bookworm,

Intersting, and as you say it seems there is room for ambiguity. It puzzles me that some crews believe being told to 'report your heading' is equivalent to being told to fly/continue/maintain your heading'. Do those crews believe the same if they were asked to 'report your level'?

[PPRuNe Radar]

Bookworm

UK controllers should never tell you to maintain a heading, that's reserved for level instructions. We might tell you to continue on a heading however :ok:

Personally I never ask an aircraft what his heading is before adjusting it, with one exception. It's 4 RT calls when 2 will suffice. Why double your workload in busy airspace ?? I can see from radar the track of the aircraft, I know how many degrees I want that to change the track by and can factor in the approximate drift, and I can ask the pilot to tell me the new heading if I really need to know it. If it's to find the 'heading du jour' then again I will tell the pilot to continue on the heading and report it. Again, 2 RT calls instead of 4. The only exception I would make would be when using the turn method to identify a non squawking aircraft since I need to know his heading to correlate it with the radar return I think is the aircraft in question before issuing the ident turn.

3 "Turn left 30 degrees and report your heading"
Probably still maintain a heading mode, but less obvious, I think.

There is a slight disconnect here between the MATS Part 1 (ATC) and the CAP413 (Pilots/ATC). The MATS permits this phrase as a means of vectoring aircraft, therefore in ATC minds it is a 'continue' heading mode. It doesn't seem to appear in the CAP413 in this format, so I can see where the confusion arises.

5 "Route direct XYZ"
Still probably own navigation, yes?

Yes :ok:

6 "Route direct XYZ and report your heading"
Er. Well by analogy with 3 we're in maintain a heading mode. By analogy with 5 we're in own navigation mode.

Non standard phraseolgy (by mixing two differing types of instrucion) which will always cause ambiuguity and confusion. If I want someone to route direct somewhere but then need them on a heading for separation because I don't have the requisite number of miles to allow me to simply monitor the separation (differs depending on the RNP status of the airspace, see previous lengthy threads :ok: ), then I would say 'Route direct XYZ, when established on track continue on your heading, report heading when steady'. It doesn't appear in the list of standard phrases but hopefully is clear enough.

Gonzo

It puzzles me that some crews believe being told to 'report your heading' is equivalent to being told to fly/continue/maintain your heading'.

I think this comes from the CAP413. The paragraph header for vectoring states 'It may be necessary for a controller to know the heading of an aircraft as separation can often be established by instructing an aircraft to continue on its existing heading.'

One of the standard phraseology 'instructions' given is then 'Fastair 345 report heading'. Reading that as a pilot I would think that it infers I must continue on that heading so the controller can establish separation. As an ATCO, I wouldn't expect them to, but clearly it is ambiguous.

I think I'll serve this one to an SRG inspector and see if we can have it sorted once and for all

:}

[bookworm]

UK controllers should never tell you to maintain a heading

It's a fair cop, guv... ;)

Non standard phraseolgy (by mixing two differing types of instrucion) which will always cause ambiuguity and confusion.

Yes. Case 6 was almost exactly what Man Flex started the thread with.

I think I'll serve this one to an SRG inspector and see if we can have it sorted once and for all.

One of the things that troubles me slightly is that there is no document that describes in sufficient detail how instructions and clearances should be interpreted. Hence the other favourite thread about level instructions when on a SID.... There's very limited guidance in PANS-ATM and PANS-OPS on any of these issues. I'd like to see that addressed, so that, once sorted this can be carved in a tablet of stone rather than being "PPrune received wisdom".

It puzzles me that some crews believe being told to 'report your heading' is equivalent to being told to fly/continue/maintain your heading'.

So:

7 "Report heading"
Still probably own navigation because it's in the "Identification" section in MATS Pt 1?

8 "Continue present heading and report that heading."
Maintain a heading mode because it's in the "Vectoring" section in MATS Pt 1.

Trouble is, pilots don't read MATS Pt1... :(

[bookworm]

Oh one more tricky set...

9)
"Fastair 345 turn left heading 320"
"Left heading 320, Fastair 345"
"Fastair 345 contact Wrayton Control 123.45 with the heading"
"Wrayton Control 123.45 Fastair 345"
<flip>
"Wrayton Control Fastair 345 Good Morning heading 320"
"Fastair 345 roger"

10)
"Fastair 345 resume own navigation to XYZ"
"Own navigation to XYZ, Fastair 345"
"Fastair 345 contact Wrayton Control 123.45 with the heading"
"Wrayton Control 123.45 Fastair 345"
<flip>
"Wrayton Control Fastair 345 Good Morning heading 320"
"Fastair 345 roger"


11)
"Fastair 345 resume own navigation to XYZ"
"Own navigation to XYZ, Fastair 345"
"Fastair 345 contact Wrayton Control 123.45 "
"Wrayton Control 123.45 Fastair 345"
<flip>
"Wrayton Control Fastair 345 Good Morning heading 320"
"Fastair 345 roger"

9 is normal. I'm obviously in maintain-heading-mode

10 is probably a controller error but I can imagine such a mix-up^H^H^H^H^H^H^H so it would never happen :ok: . Which mode does the pilot think he is in? Which mode does the second controller think he is in?

11 is a pilot trying to be "helpful". Which mode does the second controller think he is in?

So the problem is, on change of frequency, does "heading 320" from the pilot mean to the controller that he will continue that heading?

(Personally, I think "radar heading" is useful in exactly that context.)

[bottom rung]

Just to muddy the water even more....
As a procedural controller I often ask an aircraft that I am transferring to my SRA controller to "Contact XXX Radar with your heading". Not technically perfect RT but it will have to do until something else equally safe, short and concise is promulgated. This at least gives the SRA chappy one less call to make prior to turning the aircraft for ident in our primary environment.
Quite often I may ask an aircraft to leave XXX beacon on a heading of e.g. 100 to position it in an area suitable for ident by the radar controller, who may be otherwise temporarily engaged doing the previous SRA.
I have even used headings to ensure aircraft in the same area are divirging if one has suddenly gone IMC and I am trying to get some separation between them until standard separation can be applied.
There are probably loads more instances in which procedural controllers use heading instructions, but these are just a few that spring to mind.

[Man Flex]

Thanks guys for all your constructive replies...

As expected the general concensus is that this clearance/wording is ambiguous and clarification from the crew is required.

I can confirm that this was unlikely to have been the "heading de jour". There was a significant wind aloft and the heading query may well have been related; I remember commenting on this at the time. I was also aware of another aircraft in close proximity and he could well have been inbound to an adjacent airfield.

One other possiblity springs to mind...

This sector is used a lot for training and it might be possible that when the "new" controller asked us to "report heading established" he actually meant "radar heading".

Interestingly, this caused quite a discussion on the flight deck both during the event and afterwards... but that's another story.

[Pierre Argh]

HD.. thanks for confusing the issue... having knocked my statement, why not give an answer to the original question?

I never meant to infer that an ATCO needs a radar to be able to allocate a heading... and are you telling me that the Director at LHR does the job without a radar in front of him/her?... I doubt it.

So although the heading they give may be "off the top of the head" it surely is based on interpretation of the prevailing radar picture and done in the knowledge that the situation can be monitored and recovered. The allocation of headings without any radar monitoring is, IMHO, a last ditch measure, and does not come under the heading of Air Traffic CONTROL... (maybe it was done more in the past?)

[Spitoon]

Can't disagree mad_jock, the pilot is always ultimately responsible for not banging into things. I guess I was talking as a controller when, technically, the only time I'm supposed to consider terrain safety is when vectoring an aircraft.

[Pierre Argh]

Man Flex... out of curiousity, what difference does heading or radar heading make to you as a pilot?

[ukatco_535]

I would expect any pilot with a modicum of common sense, who has been told to turn left/right x degrees to maintain that heading.

How could anyone mistake that instruction for being on their own nav??

When would I use it? If i see two aircraft in conflict and want to do a climb through or whatever, I use my skills (ok, and vector lines) to project tracks, then 'tweak' the observed track on the subject aircraft. I could not give a monkeys what the resultant heading is, as long as it takes the aircraft in the direction I want it.

This is why the turn left/right x degrees usually involves a small(ish) change. If I did not know the heading but wanted to turn the aircraft a long way, for whatever reason, I would grab a decent handful then say something like 'turn left heading 345', if it is glaringly obvious that not matter what the wind is, the aircraft is nowhere near that heading at the time.

I do not have time to say to every aircraft either "XYZ report your heading" ,await reply, "XYZ roger, turn right heading" or "XYZ turn right 20 degrees continue as a radar heading and report it"!!!


I am talking mainly from a CAS perspective, where instructions are mandatory, but even outcas, if talking to a professional pilot, I would expect the same thoughts.

Maybe not ideal phraseology, but common sense if you take a second to think about it.

:O

[mad_jock]

What about the case where you are cleared direct to the end of the star and "report heading".

Is it a take up the hold or continue on heading? When you get there. Common sense say take up the hold but.....


Maybe they should start using "Radar heading" it works

MJ

[Bern Oulli]

What about the case where you are cleared direct to the end of the star and "report heading".

I am struggling to imagine why any controller would say such a thing. If any of my past students had said that, or similar, they would receive the AIP around the earhole at a considerable rate of knots.

[ATCO1962]

....ah , one of the old school, Bern! Good to keep those young'uns looking for incoming while they're training!:ok:

[Bern Oulli]

The old school was a good school. If it ain't broke..............

[Man Flex]

Until this recent event I always assumed that "report your heading" was to be taken literally just like "report your speed/Mach number".

This clearance was a little unusual and I can see why there may have been some confusion but I do not have the spare capacity to second guess for what reason the controller would want to know my heading to XXX.

If the guy then wants me to maintain that heading I would expect such phrases as "maintain this heading" or "make that a radar heading". I would then revert from "own navigation" to heading mode.

I hasten to add that I believe CAP 413 to be fairly clear on this subject and at the time I was surprised that my colleague could have interpreted it any other way.

[ukatco_535]

Man Flex

you are totally correct. "report your heading" has no implications meaning you must stay on it... its a fairly wishy washy phrase, but I might use it if I want to guage what I think is a good track for future A/C that I MAY wish to put on similar tracks; on headings, wether that be traffic reasons or positioning for next sector.

If I wanted you to report and stay on a heading I personally would use "continue present headin and report it"

[Pierre Argh]

man lfex... further to what ukatco-535 says about "request heading"... another time I'd use it is when you've requested vectors, I see you're pointing in the right direction but I need to know what you're steering to judge future turns. I might follow this up with a request to "maintain", and only when you hear this or receive a turn are you actually on a radar heading.

[Liobian]

Excuse please, if I've missed it above, but has anyone mentioned the obvious..... we send you direct, then make it a heading... because it suits us, and hopefully you too !

To set up one a/c on its desired track, but locked on that track by making it a 'radar heading', whilst you vector a second one around it (same or opposite direction), means that at least one party is pointing in the right direction when the vectoring ceases to be necessary.

I've always thought that made good sense, and helps the crew, but it will be influenced by airspace layout, climb/descent profiles, etc, so is not always appropriate.

Just my own thoughts as I strive to be helpful.
:ok:

[Tweety]

as far as I am concerned headings are only used in a radar or ADSB environment, and never in a procedural situation. In a procedural environment an acft may fly a "heading" if it is part of initial SID but eventually it will be back to the usual own navigation using aids or GPS or other