PDA

View Full Version : RWY heading/RWY track/straight ahead


machbias
19th Aug 2006, 20:01
:confused: I know that this is an old one, but could any Air Trafffic Controller clarify the meaning of clearances such as, "fly runway heading" or "fly straight ahead?"

Recently, I was taking off from an airport and the controller issued a "fly runway heading after departure" clearance.
I elected to fly the clearance using the "TRACK SEL" mode on my MCP and this caused a bit of an argument with the check pilot on board.

My understanding is that ATC issues this clearance when it wants me to fly in a straight line from the runway to avoid conflict with other traffics nearby. If I use the "HEADING SEL" mode, I could end up left or right of that straight line and violating some aispace.

Therefore, when ATC issues runway heading clearances, does it want me to fly on the runway heading regardless of drift, or to fly a straight line on the runway track?

Thanks

terrain safe
19th Aug 2006, 20:21
Personally if I say runway heading I want you to fly that heading,any drift either side of the extended centreline is my problem, as the traffic you are given the heading against maybe on the same heading and you tracking may lead to you converging. So always fly the heading, if there is a problem with the wind you will told to fly a track. Hope this helps.

spekesoftly
19th Aug 2006, 20:40
In the UK, if you are instructed to fly 'Runway Heading', and do so, you have correctly complied with your clearance, irrespective of any drift. The trouble is, IMHO, that some ATCOs use the term rather loosely, and in reality expect you to track the extended runway centre line! With "After departure climb straight ahead" there should be no ambiguity. Next time you're given "Runway Heading", especially if there's any significant cross-wind, I suggest you query it with ATC.

radarman
19th Aug 2006, 21:38
Spekesoftly has it about right - do precisely what ATC says and you're covered. IMHO there is alot of confusion these days between controllers and crews because many ATC procedures are stubbornly stuck in the 1960's and haven't caught up with the advances in the cockpit. I bet there are a fair few controllers who don't know when or where a modern jet will be flying headings, and when track. We have problems with A320's announcing they will fly an approach using 'track', but SRG insist we say 'heading'. Likewise our approach plates give the SRA glidepath as 2.8 degrees, but we have to tell pilots to descend for a three degree glidepath. Just like the old days of Meteors and Vampires! Modern flight decks enable aircraft to be flown incredibly accurately - it's about time ATC caught up.

machbias
20th Aug 2006, 04:36
Thank you very much one and all.:D

Summarizing, if I am cleared to fly runway heading and the wind is calm, regardless of what I've selected on my mode control panel, ATC will see my airplane flying on the runway heading, let's say, 152, and on a straight line.

If there is, say, a crosswind of 15 kts, if I am told to fly runway heading, ATC will see my airplane pointing to 152, but drifting left or right if I've selected heading sel on the MCP; if I have selected track mode, ATC will see me fly fly straight, but my heading will be somewhere around 145 or 165 (depending on the crosswind direction, of course), which wouldn't impress some of you.
I've got the idea.

Thanks again

This is a crisis
20th Aug 2006, 08:25
I quite agree there is a lot of confusion on this one.
If you look in the phraseology section of MATS Part 1, there is actually no approved standard phrase 'fly runway heading'
If an ATCO wants you to go straight ahead (which is usually what they are after in these circumstances) then the approved phrase is 'after departure climb straight ahead' or 'track extended centreline'. IMHO you should never hear the phrase 'fly runway heading'. If an ATCO wants you to actually fly the runway heading he should say 'after departure climb heading xxx degrees'
I have often given the instruction 'climb straight ahead' to have it read back as 'fly runway heading' - and have also been caught out when I have expected the aircraft to climb straight ahead and it has gone veering off in all directions!!

Atcham Tower
20th Aug 2006, 09:24
Mr Crisis is right; "runway heading" was dumped from the phraseology years ago but many pilots and controllers seem unaware of it. I frequently get my "climb straight ahead" read back as "climb straight ahead on runway heading". Doh! Admittedly, only in a very strong crosswind does it make much difference what the aircraft actually flies, but it is about time that this irritating little source of confusion was eradicated. An ATSIN might be appropriate.

Spitoon
20th Aug 2006, 10:34
This one should be simple but it comes up time and time again.

It may not be in the UK phraseology book but runway heading is a heading - point the aircraft in that direction.

Straight ahead is a line you can draw on the map ectending the runway centreline - it's a track to make good. As a controller I do not concern myself greatly with how the pilot may fly that track but I am fully aware of TRK mode in modern aircraft and I know that if the runway has an ILS the localiser back-beam may be a bit of a help.

I guess the problem arises because controllers often use the two terms interchangably when it makes little difference (i.e. little wind or when it's just to get the aircraft going in a general direction) - and in these circumstances I'm not going to know whether he instruction was correctly interpreted and implemented or not. But I do use the terms correctly (OK I admit it, I know I'm not supposed to but do sometimes say runway heading), and when it matters I hope and expect that pilots understand what the clearance means.

Of course speke is right, if you are unclear what a clearance requires you should ask, but for me there is nothing ambiguous about the two phrases.

Atcham Tower
20th Aug 2006, 11:29
but for me there is nothing ambiguous about the two phrases.

Not for me either, but it seems that there IS in much of the rest of the aviation world!

ComJam
20th Aug 2006, 11:58
Does anyone really expect us to use the Localiser back-beam for C/L tracking once airborne??

stillin1
20th Aug 2006, 12:22
ComJam, IMHO mehthinks you are just being silly now;)
simplistically - fly runway hdg and / or, fly straight ahead... (when called before Take off) = if you maintain the extended track for the runway the ATCO will be a happy bunny. Maintain heading = maintain heading

KISS, disappearing up one's own bottom is generally to be avoided

Tis the same semantics as affirm Vs affermative, the words change the desired effect remains the same

terrain safe
20th Aug 2006, 16:36
Tis the same semantics as affirm Vs affermative, the words change the desired effect remains the same
Not quite. You are not supposed to say affirmative as it has the same ending as negative and can lead to confusion. One of the recommendations to come out of the Tenerife disaster I think.

ComJam
20th Aug 2006, 16:47
Stillin1, it was Spitoon that suggested it, not me! ;)

Arthur Fox-Ache
21st Aug 2006, 17:08
Seem to remember the phrase "Track extended runway centerline", but can't find reference to it in the book.

Arfur :ok:

stillin1
21st Aug 2006, 17:30
Not quite. You are not supposed to say affirmative as it has the same ending as negative and can lead to confusion

My point entirely mon brave! = means the same thing, only one is "correct"

Comjam, bugga, soz you are correct. Humble apologies:{

ATCO2
21st Aug 2006, 22:34
Hi everyone,

Regarding a runway heading, I have a question for ATCOs. Is that clearance applicable below MVA and in case where the climb gradient is much higher than normal is. Shoud you specify rate of climb in that case because of high ROC and it is due to obstacles left/right?

Thanks in advance

husky767
22nd Aug 2006, 08:15
Nice subject to talk about. I am a controller from Kuwait and I advice you to read FAA document 7110.65,there is a good stuff inside it about the phrase " Runway Heading". take care....:)

refplus20
22nd Aug 2006, 09:16
:cool:
Pilot/Controller Glossary (P/CG)
Effective 2/16/06
Includes Change 1, effective 8/3/06
Quote .... RUNWAY HEADING- The magnetic direction that corresponds with the runway centerline extended, not the painted runway number. When cleared to "fly or maintain runway heading," pilots are expected to fly or maintain the heading that corresponds with the extended centerline of the departure runway. Drift correction shall not be applied; e.g., Runway 4, actual magnetic heading of the runway centerline 044, fly 044. .... unquote.

2 sheds
22nd Aug 2006, 09:30
Why would ATC ever want a departing aircraft to fly a runway heading, with no regard to the probable drift?

choclit runway
22nd Aug 2006, 11:16
Why would ATC ever want a departing aircraft to fly a runway heading, with no regard to the probable drift?

Quite.... it's not in the book so we shouldn't be using it! If a pilot needs to ask the question then the question answers itself. It is confusing so dont use it (although I did last night after a go around)! Wont again though.

Scott Voigt
22nd Aug 2006, 21:54
Why wouldn't we use runway heading??? It's no different than ANY other heading we would use. If you have two aircraft off of parallels, they are both effected by the wind. We assign our 15 degree divergence for the heading and we have what we need... Runway heading on one, and the 15 degrees on the other one works just splendid...

regards

Scott

catocontrol
22nd Aug 2006, 23:43
Well if you instruct an aircraft to fly runway heading they can understand the instruction as a radar vector, because of the word heading. A better phrase would be: "After departure, continue straight ahead"

SM4 Pirate
23rd Aug 2006, 01:14
Whilst this may not be universal, here is the applicable reference to the rules in Oz...

ENR 1.1 - 11 4.8 Departure Instructions

4.8.1 Departure instructions may contain the following as required:
a. aircraft identification;
b. radar heading instructions;**
c. altitude restrictions;
d. direction of turn;
e. tracking points; and
f. any other instructions.
** Note: A pilot assigned a radar heading (including runway heading) must not compensate for wind effect.

Seems pretty clear what you should fly if asked to fly on "Runway Heading"

Spitoon
23rd Aug 2006, 18:53
catocontrol, this is point - runway heading and straight ahead are not the same.

refplus20
23rd Aug 2006, 19:23
Asked the very question yesterday when cleared to climb staright ahead. He expected us to maintain the runway centreline.

Passenger 9
23rd Aug 2006, 19:33
- - - - - Runway Heading - - - - - Straight Ahead - - - - - Center Line - - - - -

..... No No No .....

ICAO says Runway AXIS.

In its A/D documentation ICAO refers to Runway AXIS when talking about the extended runway center line.

"Climb on runway axis _ _ _ " seems logical and easy to understand. maybe ICAO have somethin there.


Next candidate please :)

iamhere
23rd Aug 2006, 19:57
I Have heard "Climb on Runway Axis" used many times.

Yep. Logical. Clear. Confusion free. Or not?

Then there is "Cross runway axis"

I'll go for this "Runway Axis" thing :)

chevvron
24th Aug 2006, 08:13
Personally I would prefer the RAF requirement which is to fly runway track ie your track must be the same as runway QDM rather than runway heading + crosswind drift; unfortunately I'm lumbered with MATS Pt 1 which say 'straight ahead'.

discountinvestigator
24th Aug 2006, 08:51
ICAO Doc 4444 Phraseology says:

[AFTER DEPARTURE]TURN RIGHT (or LEFT) HEADING (three digits)(or CONTINUE RUNWAY HEADING)(or TRACK EXTENDED CENTRE LINE)TO (level or significant point)[(other instructions as required)]

Now you are meant to file differences to ICAO Doc 4444 in the Aeronautical Information Publication GEN 1.7. So, simply, if you have not got a filed difference to change the meaning of the phrase, then "continue runway heading" is a requirement to continue on runway HEADING.

I wonder if the air traffic controller has considered the obstacle environment and minimum climb gradient when giving this instruction? After all, the aerodrome licensing requirements assume you go off on runway TRACK, plus or minus a bit. A badly flown heading, plus crosswind could be interesting in some terrain rich environments with unusual wind patterns. Still, that would be the air traffic control service provider's area for their safety management system to consider.

Discount.

ComJam
24th Aug 2006, 18:32
So. can we have a definitive answer then?

"Climb straight ahead" = maintain RUNWAY TRACK

"Maintain Runway Heading" = exactly that!!

Correct? :)

Spitoon
24th Aug 2006, 19:46
Yup.......that's it!

ComJam
24th Aug 2006, 20:25
Well, that was easy.

NEXT! :ok:

This is a crisis
24th Aug 2006, 20:26
Hate to be pedantic peeps...but not quite!!
In the UK anyway.....'climb straight ahead' or 'fly heading xxx'
You should never hear the phrase 'maintain/fly runway heading' - as was stated previously, it was removed from phraseology some years ago
:ok:

ATCO2
24th Aug 2006, 20:59
Hi everyone,

Just a simple question. How to apply any heading below MVA. Is a RWY HDG something different from other ones? Each acft when airborn is below MVA and we know that there is no hdgs below MVA.

How to apply this "After dep, turn right/left hdg xxx when we know that any acft must not turn on a hdg after dep untill they cross at least 396 ft above elev (Pans Ops).

I want to hear your opinions about this.

Thanks

ComJam
25th Aug 2006, 16:27
Well, i've heard "maintain runway heading" all over the UK, so lots of guys obviously still use it..

PPRuNe Radar
25th Aug 2006, 21:34
ComJam

You know how you get gash pilots ..... ? ;)

Well, we get gash controllers as well :ok:

UK differences to phraesology are filed via CAP413, thus it's 'Continue straight ahead' (adjust for drift), or 'continue present heading', or 'fly heading XXX' (just fly the heading and let ATC worry about the drift).

Most UK airfields will also have noise restrictions so the ATCO will normally also take care of that too. (After XX DME, or passing XXXX feet, fly heading XXX).

PS Any UK controller telling you to 'maintain a heading' needs their balls cut off .... it's 'continue' in the Queens English ;)

letMfly
25th Aug 2006, 21:45
PS Any UK controller telling you to 'maintain a heading' needs their balls cut off .... it's 'continue' in the Queens English ;)
What if it's a laydee controller?

ComJam
26th Aug 2006, 11:51
Gash pilots?! I've never heard such nonsense :)

Spitoon
26th Aug 2006, 12:25
UK differences to phraesology are filed via CAP413, Not strictly true although I think you'll find that principal differences (i.e. variations from ICAO rather than differences filed by the UK in accordance with the terms of the Chicago Convention) are listed.

PPRuNe Radar
26th Aug 2006, 18:51
Fair point, actual filed differences are in the UK AIP GEN 1-7-37, repeated in the CAP413 as examples of phraseology.

choclit runway
27th Aug 2006, 12:06
As a tower only bod' I'm not rated to issue a heading unless instructed by radar. Even if it has been removed, now I really think about it 'fly straight ahead' is unambiguous. You take off and fly in a strainght line from the runway (might be tracking or might not be).

Actually now I think about it everything hurts.....

tournesol
27th Aug 2006, 18:33
refPlus20,
You got it right.
# Runway heading means Runway heading.
# "Climb straight ahead" means Runway heading, because the heading will be straight ahead, while the airplane is drifting.
# "Maintain runway track". Well a track must have a starting point such as a VOR, NDB, etc... in this case what is the starting point ?
# "Runway QDM". Well in many countries they dont even use this term.
# "Back course localizer". Now we are complicating a simple issue here, by over loading the pilot at a critical phase of flight with unnecessary extra task.
IN THE END JUST MAINITAIN RUNWAY HEADING.:ok: :ok:

Pierre Argh
27th Aug 2006, 19:19
"Maintain runway track". Well a track must have a starting point... in this case what is the starting point ? Errr, how about the departure threshold, or that too obvious?

Stop splitting hairs guys, the instruction is a simple attempt to describe to the pilot an ATC requirement to maintain over the extended runway centreline on climbout when "runway hdg" might not take into account drift and "straight ahead" is less precise?

Anyone got a better idea?

ATCO2
27th Aug 2006, 20:33
tournesol (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=100253)

I agree with you regarding a track and rwy hdg. What is your opinion or experience with rwy hdg in the mountainous terrein and with ROC higher then normal is, e.g. more then 5% required. Would you specify any ROC in that case or just let pilots fly at own discretion? What is your opinion about rwy hdg when the MVA is higher then 6000' in the area when you instruct a pilot to fly rwy hdg?

Regards,

Spitoon
27th Aug 2006, 21:26
OK, I can see why the UK phraseology only refers to one term - straight ahead. If it this difficult for people to understand the difference between an instruction to fly a heading and an instruction to make good a track I'm frightened to ask a difficult question!

The simple fact is that many controllers use straight ahead and runway heading interchangeably - who knows why, maybe it's laziness, maybe it's because it's only the general direction that matters and although it's scary, maybe they don't recognise the difference. But unless the clearance is ambiguous, do what the clearance says - fly a heading or make good the runway track. If it's ambiguous ask for clarification.

Let's be honest, if there's little wind - or even a moderate amount of wind - it doesn't make any difference anyway whether a pilot adjusts for drift or just flies the runway heading, the controller really isn't going to know the difference!

Paradise Lost
28th Aug 2006, 13:08
It is totally obvious that massive confusion exists amongst both drivers and controllers.
ATC never in my experience ask an aircraft to maintain a track. They either instruct you to proceed to a waypoint, follow a published procedure or fly a heading!
Whether or not it is covered by NATS/ICAO/PANSOPS, commonly all over the world SIDs are amended by the instruction 'maintain runway heading to XXXX' then etc.
This does not seem to be ambiguous at all. HEADING is HEADING.
I have sat on the end of a runway on many occasions with a strong crosswind and watched alternate aircraft drifting downwind and the next aircraft maintaining runway centreline TRACK.
Finally, while FMS equipped aircraft can maintain track simply, what about all the other lesser equipped mortals on non instrument runways who have no method of maintaining the extended centreline track.

tournesol
28th Aug 2006, 15:04
Atco2
You caught me there buddy, I am not sure I can answer to your question, and I would'nt want to missguide you.
I will attempt however by sharing my personal experience. Whenever I have come accross the term "maintain runway heading" it has been in VMC. Furthermore, My understanding is the controller who knows his/her airport MVA will give this clearence conditionally. eg. "xyz clerared for take off, maiantain runway heading when passing 3000ft, turn left/right heading xxx,continue climbing 8000ft."
Every time I have heard the clerarence it has been used only for a relativelly short time.
Someone said earler, if it is used only for short time and even if the x-wind is strong the drift would be negligible.

Pierre Argh
28th Aug 2006, 15:33
Once again the global nature of the PPRuNe audience is generating red herirngs... and any debate becomes tricky once you start to consider different nationalities modus operandii... and any difference there maybe therein between Mil and Civil procedures (and believe me there are MANY differences)

In the UK the Mil are advised to use "Runway Track" NOT "Straight Ahead", or "Runway Heading"... so Paradise Lost, I'm afraid you're not quite correct(see the end of the next paragraph for the reason why)

I agree with Spitoon, to a point, and would suggest pilots fly the clearance... if told to maintain runway track do so, unless unable to comply (in which case tell us) and if in doubt request clarification. But as for wind drift not having ANY effect... I can quote the case of an Airprox that was filed at an airfield where one pilot climbed out on runway hdg... not on runway track (i.e. maintaining over the centreline) and came too close to comfort to another in the Visual Circuit

Finally, I tend to agree witht he comment that the instruction will invariably be given as a short term control. For example, I have traffic close to the SID track, moving away... I suspect that by the time the next departure is airborne and turning onto track the subject confliction will be clear, but to make sure I'd give a "runway track" instruction... then as soon as I can see clearly that seperation exists, I'd give "own navigation".... often this is the first instruction after take-off. In otherwords it's about avoiding delays, expedition and efficiency?

As for terrain clearance... at the places I've worked mountains haven't been an issue, so I cannot comment first-hand but would like to think that a Controller wouldn't use this technique if the SID included a turn simply for terrain?

FixedRotaryWing
30th Aug 2006, 14:19
refPlus20,
...
# "Runway QDM". Well in many countries they dont even use this term.
...


QDM means magnetic bearing to a station, so following runway QDM will end at the runway, which is not always wanted in a departure.

The magnetic bearing from a station is called QDR.

tournesol
1st Sep 2006, 07:59
"The magnetic bearing from a station is called QDR."
Thank you for the correction. It must be that cold stuff in a can right next to me that caused the confusion.
Cheers. :ok:

alibaba
1st Sep 2006, 11:29
I had this a few months ago out of SNN. "Climb straight ahead" was the clnc.

I thought it meant RWY track as the rwy has an omnidirectional departure. We had a X-Wind of about 55-65 knots at 1000ft agl :eek: So I applied the drift correction. We ended up having a debate with the next controller about the heading.

It does say in Pan Ops, Doc 4444 and Doc 8168 that it is meant to be track so that is what I done. If we had been on RWY hdg we would have ended up outside protected centre line coverage (15 degrees) such was the wind therefore not giving any guaranteed terrain separation.

8168:3.1 "Where no track guidance is provided in the design, the departure criteria are developed by Omnidirectional method."

3.3 " unless otherwise specified, departure procedures are developed on the assumption of a 3.3 PDG and a straight climb on the extended runway centre line until reaching 120m (394ft) above the aerodrome elevation."

1.3.8 "Pilots should not accept radar vectors during departure unless:
a. they are above the minimum altitude(s)/ height(s) required to maintain obstacle clearance in the event of engine failure. This relates to engine failure between V1 and minimum sector altitude or the end of the contingency procedure as appropriate; or
b. the departure route in non-critical with respect to obstacle clearance."

I notice nobody cares about track but in an engine failure with not much climb performance this is the most important of factors. If outside of the protected and on one engine there is no guarantee of anything. :ugh:

So if it's a large X-Wind I am going to fly track. If not a hdg. I think it does need to be resolved though. On engine failure my SOPS are to track straight ahead and that is what I would do.

:*