Direct-to v. Proceed-to v. Own-Nav-to

[IRpilot2006]

What is the difference between the above? In the European airways context, they appear to be used interchangeably.

If the waypoint given is just one, I read it back as "direct to AAA, Nxxxx" in all cases, and fly a DCT AAA.

If the instruction is the much less common multi-waypoint one "own navigation AAA BBB CCC" then obviously I read it back as that, and start off with a DCT route to AAA.

I would guess that a DCT means DCT, Proceed To is just DCT in casual phraseology, whereas Own-Nav-To is a DCT but there isn't any traffic too close so it doesn't matter how exactly you get to the [first] waypoint.

I believe there may be an implied assumption of what one is supposed to do when the clearance is exhausted. If the waypoint given (or, in a multi-waypoint instruction, the last waypoint given) lies on your filed route, then you can revert to the filed route. Otherwise you are stuck in a limbo. In practice one would remind the ATCO before getting to the end of the clearance, of course. In a real lost-comms situation one would do the lost comms procedure (extra 7 mins on the last heading if in UK airspace IIRC, fly the clearance and then revert to flied route if elsewhere).

Any comments from airways sector ATCOs?

[BALIX]

The phrase 'procede to' is not one I've heard used so I can't really comment on that one but as far as the others are concerned, if I say 'route direct to XXXXX', it means just that - you should point your little magenta line at XXXXX and follow it. 'Resume own navigation to XXXXX' means the same thing but I would say it when I no longer required you to be on an assigned (or dare I say radar) heading.

If I were to say 'resume own navigation XXXX, YYYY, ZZZZZ', once again, I would expect you to fly that route whether or not it was your filed route. In each case I would expect a readback and although I would be in my rights to expect you to go the way I have said, it would be foolish of me to base lateral separation on the anticipation of you complying.

[anotherthing]

I think it is a bit of ambiguous phraseology.

If I was being pedantic and said route direct, I would mean go straight there. If I said own navigation to xxxx, then it would mean I would not care if you deviated from a straight line.

I have heard some people use "resume own navigation direct to xxx"... If it's own navigation, surely it is not always direct!!

I would never base separation on any of the above though.

[DTY/LKS]

I agree with BALIX. Pretty much the same thing.

I would use "Route Direct AAA" if you were flying on your own navagation (not on a heading assigned by ATC)

I would use "resume your own navigation to AAA" if you had previously been on a heading assigned by us.

Either way i want you to head towards AAA now.

You are correct in saying that if you were given route direct to AAA, BBB, CCC, then we expect you to go now to AAA then BBB then CCC

Hope that helps to clear it up a bit.

[!turnleftrightnow!]

well.. i think that "own navigation" thing is from former times when controllers didn´t really care if the aircraft was flying directly to a nav-aid or not, because vertical separation was assured and it didn´t make too much of a difference, because there was not too much traffic beeing controlled.
since traffic has increased a lot (at least where i am working) and lots of on-way airways have been introduced (often laterally separated by not more than 7 miles) i really don´t want pilots to resume own navigation!!!
i either want them to fly to a previously assigned point or on the route they filed...:E

[LN-ATC]

"Resume own navigation DCT xxx" is a correct phraseology to use when radar vectoring is terminated, and ATC wants you to proceed DCT xxx using your own fancy equipment.

[VinMan]

I have heard some people use "resume own navigation direct to xxx"... If it's own navigation, surely it is not always direct!!
Very very true... We have to make an effort to avoid ambiguous or otherwise simply silly phrases.
The shorter, the better.

[VinMan]

What is the difference between the above? In the European airways context, they appear to be used interchangeably.
Any comments from airways sector ATCOs?
It's a pity you feel these differences and logically get confused at them.
Simply don't forget that old habits are almost impossible to change, whether or not regulations have changed a couple of times... ;)
In France, "proceed to" is now forbidden, but loads of elder ATCOs and their trainees, then operational ATCOs ! will still say that.
For me it's plain simple:
* "direct (waypoint)" if only a waypoint to use
* "route (waypoint1), (waypoint2), (waypoint3)" if several
*"keep heading XXX°" for spacing
* "resume direct (waypoint)" when spacing action is over