UK ATC, heading 'one hundred' degrees.

[IRRenewal]

Have been instructed a few times now by London to turn left/right heading 'one hundred' degrees (should probably say 'wun hundred', but that is a different story).

Is this now allowed terminology, or is this a case of a controller being a bit lazy?

Thanks in advance.

[BrATCO]

As far as i know, headings finishing with "00" can be spelt "hundred" in English phraseology, as levels.

But a heading (001-360) should not finish with "degrees".

"Degrees" is reserved for relative turns. (turn right/left 10 "degrees")

[Arkady]

In the UK one (two, three, or four) hundred is only standard phraseology for flight levels. One zero zero degrees is the correct phraseology in this case. Degrees is added to all headings ending in a zero, but is not required for headings ending in any other digit.

[BrATCO]

That's right, I was wrong : not for headings...:O

Being French, I don't pronounce the H in hundred, so I spell it "3-0-0" any time, heading, level or any number.

And just to be sure, I never give levels 100, 200, 300, rarely 400. As for the headings, I use 301 or 299 ! :}

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

Don't see any problem in 'Fly heading 100 degrees' ... doesn't sound a thing like 'Climb FL100'! Yet more arse-covery by the CAP413 brigade.

"Fly heading wun zero zero degrees" is more likely to be misinterpreted as "Fly heading wun wun zero degrees" than "Fly heading wun hundred degrees" being interpreted as "Climb flight level wun hundred". Truly pathetic :ugh:

[FUN.LEVER.FORWARD]

Ref ICAO Doc 4444: 4.1.3 Vectoring Instructions

d. FLY HEADING (three digits);


So definately no 'DEGREES' in there. As BrATCO has said, the only time we use 'DEGREES' is when giving a turn:

e. TURN LEFT (or RIGHT) (number) DEGREES (or HEADING (three digits)) [reason]


I personally will end all given headings in a 5 (where possible) to avoid confusion with Flight Levels ie. 'Fly heading 105'

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

You aren't in the UK though, where the CAA introduced its own R/T manual filled with nonsense!

[FUN.LEVER.FORWARD]

Good point...:mad: 'Local Variations'. I'm at my fourth centre and 3rd Country and am getting very confused :confused:, so refer to Doc 4444 if in doubt....which is often

[novation]

The college of knowledge of NATS teaches that 1 hundred, 2 hundred, 3 hundred, and so fourth refers purely to flight levels. Also, when issuing degrees after a heading the rule is that you only say it after headings ending with zero; i.e. turn left heading " three four zero degrees". Good practice however dictates you should always say degrees after a heading as you may be giving quadrantals levels ending in five.

[zounds]

Gents.

The practice of using "hundreds" for flight levels and single digits followed by "degrees" is one of many practices employed in the UK in an attempt to reduce the number of level busts that occur. Stats available somewhere, I'm sure.

IRRenewal,

To answer your question, the ATCO's being lazy. (Or doesn't know what he/she's doing. Confidence inspiring?) I'd encourage you to next time request clarification of the instruction ("confirm that's heading one-zero-zero, not flight level one hundred?") They'll be annoyed, for sure but it'll stop them from doing it. If it keeps happening, report it.

Novation,

I feel it appropriate to point out that it's not just the college at NATS that teaches this practice. Every UK college does. Being standard phraseology, it applies to everyone. Good point about the quadrantals.

Sir Herbrt Gussett,

Granted, some of the 413 may not make much sense at first glance (and indeed does contain the occasional poor idea (holding positions / holding points, anyone?)) but for the most part is compiled with safety and clarity in mind, without variation from the ICAO standards unless deemed absolutely necessary. The key is for everyone to stick to the standard phrasology, so that the risk of confusion is further minimised.
The risk of confusing the numbers 100 and 110 is well documented, and has been the subject of much attention from safety groups in the UK. Nationwide advice and guidlines have been issued on numerous occasions.
I would suggest that if you disagree with any element of the rules that have been compiled by the panel of hugely knowledgeable aviation experts with years of experience that are acting solely with the intention of providing a safe flight environment for you, your family, and your friends, that you come up with a viable alternative and present it to them (having first of course gone through the approprite safety management process - risk assessments etc.). I think you'll find that they're open to ideas so long as you're serious and have thought it through.

Kind regards,

Z

[orgASMic]

Zounds - well said.

[IRRenewal]

Thanks for the replies, it confirmed what I thought UK standard R/T is.

I have no intention of getting individuals in trouble by reporting anybody. After all, pilots in general can hardly claim to be the most consistent when it comes to R/T.

[Cartman's Twin]

I can understand your opinion IR and certainly wouldn't enjoy the tap on the shoulder by my UCE (the person who signs my annual competency check) however perhaps the rather diplomatic request for clarification may discourage the controller from continuing to abbreviate where they shouldn't.

I agree that much of the red tape and ICAO / CAP paperwork may best be used as solid fuel, but there is much within designed to ensure both your safety and our sanity!

Heading 'one hundred' degrees is not standard phraseology and, as the previous poster highlighted, one hundred should only be used for Flight Levels and I could easily see how this could result in possible error.

The suggestion that heading 1-0-0 and 1-1-0 may be confused may well be true, but I'd suggest that a 10 degree difference between headings is far less likely to be safety critical than a climb of 1000 feet! In this situation I'd normally use a heading of 105, then it won't be confused with either! As an examiner I often wonder why people use things like 'Fly heading 110 degrees, climb FL 120'. Yes I know there will be situations when this is the most appropriate instruction but in a vast majority of cases there is an almost identical option with far less chance of confusion.

The most important thing is that if you're ever less than 100% (that's one hundred...) certain of the instruction, ask for clarification. Yes the controller may be busy and may be a little frustrated by the repeat but I promise you that they'd much rather lose 8 seconds of RT than separation - whoever's at fault.

Safe flying

[directKORUL]

I have to say I have used this phraseology during very high RT load periods to try and reduce the error rate between 1 0 0 and 1 1 0. I have had one pilot query it and he said that he almost turned 100 degreees left. That would be rediculous, but I took his comment on board and now very rarely use it and even then it usually due to a slip of the tongue and reverting to what had become a bit of a habit.

[Arkady]

"As an examiner I often wonder why people use things like 'Fly heading 110 degrees, climb FL 120'."

I think this sort of thing happens because of NATS obsession with "best practice" and easy knee jerk reactions to incidents. Rather than encourage the ATCO to think of each situation as unique and act accordingly we are bombarded with new procedures and requirements that are meant to prevent all similar incidents. Consequently we are training a generation of controllers who believe there is a book solution to every problem, or, at least, a coverall action that absolves them (and NATS) of further responsibility.

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

The responses here have been fascinating - thanks for providing me with a good read and something to go away and think about. :ok:

[Talkdownman]

I think this sort of thing happens because of NATS obsession with "best practice" and easy knee jerk reactions to incidents.
nats' obsession with "best practice' muddies its waters especially when it comes to competence examinations. Some misguided nats LCEs have deluded themselves that so-called best practices are SOPs. Back-of-envelope best practices are not official procedures. nats should stick to CAP413 rather than try to bend the rules.

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

nats' obsession with "best practice' muddies its waters especially when it comes to competence examinations. Some misguided nats LCEs have deluded themselves that so-called best practices are SOPs. Back-of-envelope best practices are not official procedures. nats should stick to CAP413 rather than try to bend the rules.

NATS best practice (does your unit have its official "Best Practice" document yet?) seems to me like its basically about a*se covering. And not for the controller, I mean corporate a*se covering.

If, god forbid, a nasty does happen, NATS can say, "well we gave and assessed the controller to this level, we also gave the controller this best practice guide which it appears he chose not to follow".

Gives them something to hide behind in a world of litigation, while giving the guys and girls wearing the headsets more rope to hang themselves with :yuk: