Using the term "track to"

[Flying Guy]

This may belong in the ATC forum but I am interested to hear comments by other pilots.

Recently I have been given several clearances in Europe and the Middle east by ATC to "track to" a way point that is several way points further down my route. I find this slightly confusing because the correct term, as far as I know, is "cleared direct."

I think the controller means for me to proceed direct to the given way point but I question the terminology because to "track" to implies a specific course over the ground, not necessarily "direct."

Is "track to" an accepted form of "cleared direct" or just loose ATC vernacular?

I am not throwing stones at ATC, they are great guys but I personally find this terminology somewhat misleading.

Am I being too critical about this or just plain wrong? Is "track to" an officially accepted term for "cleared direct to?"

Opinions?

[Watchdog]

I agree - I'd prefer to hear "track direct to" or "recleared direct to" but it seems that the 'direct' being omitted is common in Europe. :confused:

[Fox3snapshot]

Intresting concern, we get so many questions on the fequency when we clear direct and the common question is "confirm from present position" which leaves me completely miffed :hmm: as I wouldn't expect you to go back to the previous point and track from there!

Its scemantics really...direct is direct as far as I am concerned and all you have to do is get Mr. FMS pointer finger going and bang in that next waypoint that you have a direct track for...

But don't quizz it or you will spook the controller and end up recleared via the scenic route!!! :p

[Flying Guy]

Fox3snapshot,

Are you ATC? If so, don't you guys have a manual of correct terminology? Is "Track to" in there?

Just to clarify, if someone told me, "track direct to" I wouldn't have any problem. It is when I am told "track to" (without the "direct" part) that I question the clearance.

I have been told that non English controllers have a manual of 150 or so allowable ATC terms. Is "track to" in there?

Thanks - flying Guy

[BurglarsDog]

Hi.

Bit of spare time on my paws (its raining outside) so Id thought Id check a few docs and report in.

ICAO DOC 9432 - Manual of Radio telephony, has no reference to the word Track when used as an instruction.

Mind you our version is dated 1990 and still uses RT like :

" FASTAIR 345 WICKEN 47 FL330 MARLOW 57 COLINGTON NEXT !!

So may be outdated.

The only ref to "track" is in the definition section which states:

TRACK- The projection on the earths surface of the path of an aircraft, the direction of which path at any point is usually expressed in degrees from North ( true, magnetic or grid).

DOC 4444 - Air Traffic Management does not refer to Track per se.

However, under 12.3.2.1 "Area Control services" :

Issuance of any clearance uses the following phraseologies:

(name of unit) CLEARS....EK201 ;

or EK201 CLEARED to.......;

or

EK201.. RECLEARED (amended clearance details) rest of clearance unchanged;

or

EK201 RECLEARED ( amended route portion) to ( significant point of original route { rest of clearance unchanged}

While indication of the route and any clearance limit is specified using the following phraseologies: (So add any of the above to the following )


"From ... TO ........

or

TO (location) followed as necessary by DIRECT / VIA (route and / significant points ) VIA FPL ROUTE.

Annex 10 Volume II highlights National differences to standard ICAO phraseologies. No ref to "track" in their either though.

In Oz "Track Direct" is often used. Elsewhere I would suggest you confirm with ATC the exact intent of their clearance ( never assume check and all that) i.e ." ... CONFIRM EK201 CLEARED DIRECT XYZ FROM PRESENT POSITION" or words to that effect

Stopped raining so Im off for my walk:)

DogGone

[Flying Guy]

Thanks DogGone,

You did some research on this and I appreciate it.

What you found (or didn't find) confirms my suspicion that "track to" is not correct terminology for "cleared direct." As I mentioned previously, it happened to me twice in the last month, once in France and once in the UAE. As you mentioned, I did confirm just what they wanted me to do. The French controller seemed exasperated by my request for confirmation that he wanted me to go "direct."

I took a moment with the UAE controller (since the frequency was fairly quiet) to explain my discomfort with his use of "track to." He acknowledged and seemed surprised, so I am not sure what he thought of my observation that the clearance was not clear. By the way, the UAE controllers are excellent in my experience.

Pending more input I am nevertheless becoming convinced this is jargon rather than correct ATC terminology. Unfortunately, pilots may be accepting this clearance with the assumption it is "cleared direct" which reinforces the use of this misleading terminology.

This whole thing may sound insignificant but I think it is important. Good communication between pilots and ATC is founded on the use of using specified, correct terminology, particularly when flying internationally.

I will wait for a few more replies to this thread before I come to a final conclusion though.

Thanks again - Flying Guy

[Hold West]

To me, "track to" implies a specified ground track, not a random direct routing. Therefore, I agree with those above saying it's a confusing bit of phraseology.

The only time in recent memory I've used "track to" was when assigning an unpublished hold at an RNAV fix, as in "Cleared to KOLTE, hold SW on the 043 track to KOLTE...". At that, it took me a second to figure out what to say - since "track to" isn't in our book, but "bearing to" or "radial" certainly didn't seem to fit.

[Basil]

<<But don't quizz it or you will spook the controller and end up recleared via the scenic route!!!>>
I have always and have always advised my first officers 'If in doubt get it confirmed.'