radar heading

[wobblyprop]

Can someone tell me if there is something special about this. I've heard pilots saying something along the following lines

London, UK2MD, FL 50 for 70, Radar heading 260.

What is the radar heading part. I've not come across this in any of the aptl stuff. Is it a track heading rather than a compass heading?

Thanks

Wobblyprop

[Genghis the Engineer]

True track (that or I've been doing it wrong for years and nobody noticed).

G

[foghorn]

Wow, I never thought I'd ever be in a position to contradict Genghis, however I am about to.

In the example that you mention, what you're hearing is the first call on a frequency by an aircraft. It is accepted practice under IFR on handover to a new frequency to make the first call with the current level and details of the last clearance. It is even possible that the ATC unit handing over asked them to do this:

"UK2MD report radar heading to London Control on xxx.xx"

it simply means that the aircraft was under radar vectors before handover, and so should report the last vector to the next frequency. Note that on very busy frequencies they ask not to do this for reasons of RT congestion:

"UK2MD contact Heathrow Director on 119.72 with callsign only"

Now, a radar heading is not a true track, it is the magnetic heading that ATC wants you to fly. ATC will apply correction for variation and wind if necessary.

cheers!
foggy

[Fred]

A while ago on a flight into EDI when I had recently got my IMC and had very little IFR experience in CAS I had to ask Scottish control what this meant after he had asked me my heading and said "make that your radar heading". He patiently explained that it was the heading I now had to maintain under the RCS until I was told otherwise. Since then I have found this phrase used very often in CAS but am still surprised that there is no mention of it in CAP 413.

[spekesoftly]

A "radar heading", in the context of the question by wobblyprop, is simply a heading to fly as specified by a radar controller.

[eyeinthesky]

Am I the only one who finds it amazing that two pilots, one of whom is working towards his ATPL and the other who has an IMC rating, are prepared to admit they have no idea what is meant by 'radar heading'? What are your instructors doing? As part of your IMC training were you never given a radar vectored ILS or Surveillance Radar Approach?

If you really do have no idea of the concept then there is something sorely lacking in your training, and you need to ask your instructors what they think they are doing.

It may be however that you have actually been following radar headings without knowing what they are called. They are the bread and butter of ATC these days, and are commonplace. The advantage for us as pilots is that the navigation element is done for us by ATC, but it is easy to relax and lose your situational awareness, and when you get the phrase "Resume own navigation to.." you have no idea where you are! (Although technically we are supposed to give you your position with a "resume own nav" you will find that in the airways environment this is seldom done.)

[wobblyprop]

I can honestly say that i have never been told to report my heading as a radar heading. I've done my IMC and i'm about to start my IR.

Yes, i have been given radar vectors to ILS but thought that this "radar heading" business was something different.

Thanks for all your replies

[PPRuNe Radar]

The phrase 'Radar Heading' is used by a lot of controllers in the UK but is not standard phraseology.

Personally the word 'radar' is an extra one which is not required and not one I use.

[Dogma]

Amazing, pilots that do not know that this instruction means "fly heading....".

Track has little to do with heading. Still wind your Hdg (M) will be your Track (M).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well I'm obviously wrong and have been for years, just as well I earn 90% of my salary as an Engineer.

Can anybody point to the definitive answer in a document somewhere. It must be there?

Last I recall being given it was by an RAF controller diverting me.

Maybe we should cross-post to the ATC forum and see what they mean by it, which is probably the important interpretation.

G

[Llamapoo]

There was a recent thread about the reporting radar headings (and flight level) on handover. Although it assumes people know what a 'radar heading' is, it explains just why ATCOs ask for that information to be provided on contact.

Handovers (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84894)

Basically, if one ATCO puts you on a heading (probably to keep you separated) and then transfers you, if you don't tell the new ATCO that you're on a heading you could continue on that heading and into other traffic, with the new ATCO thinking you're following the filed routing. So if the ATCO asks you to contact the next frequency with heading (or any other piece of information) do it - it's for your safety! :ok:

[ferris]

An aircraft can have only one heading. When you look on the dash, the compass will provide it. The way the aircraft is pointing, measured in degrees magnetic.
The confusion arising is the phrase 'radar heading'. If you are flying under your own nav, you are flying a heading to make good a track. That heading will vary for wind etc. When a controller talks about a radar heading, she means 'disregard your track just look at the compass and fly according to the magnetic heading that I tell you.' The 'radar' bit is just emphasising that you are under radar control. It actually has no meaning. The pilot then picks this up, and on transfer reports 'radar heading ...' to emphasise that he is on a heading not necessarily of his choice ie. not making good a track.
When you get the 'report heading', then 'make that a radar heading' thing, the controller is just making sure that you continue going across the screen in a straight line. Your heading is making good a track, and though the controller doesn't really care about the track, locks you on that heading, taking responsiblity for nav off you, to keep you going in a straight line across the radar for his purposes. In other words, giving you a vector without taking you away from where you want to go.

[eyeinthesky]

Further to ferris' reply:

In the UK at least, we still work on the requirement to use radar headings for separation. For example, if we have two aircraft head on or side by side and we need to climb or descend one through the other, we have to lock them on radar headings. Those headings will be selected at the time we decide to take the action, and will take no account of changing winds as the aircraft change level. More than a few people have been caught out by putting both aircraft on the same heading, only to find them drifting together as the wind takes effect.

Seeing as most common transport aircraft are FMS equipped today, it would be far easier and more reliable in terms of maintaining a track which will keep them apart if we could, for example, tell the aircraft to fly left or right by 3 miles from an airway centreline. Most FMS will maintain that far better than will a radar heading picked 10,000ft earlier. Provided we tell the aircraft not to deviate until advised and monitor it on radar I can't see the problem. Until such time, however, the scenarios described by ferris will continue to occur.

[Mushroom_2]

Further to what eyeinthesky said about tracks, with todays' electric aeroplanes why don't ATC point us in the direction they require and then say "maintain that track". No further problems with changing winds etc and we will fly along a very straight line on their display!

[Final 3 Greens]

If RADAR HEADING is such a useful term and is in regular use by ATCOs, then why the h*ll doesn't someone do something about it and get it into CAP413 so that instructors can teach it.

We are after all constantly bombarded with the need for standard phraseology, with 'horror stories' such as Tenerife 1977 being quoted as the reason why and yet some professional pilots are implying a criticism of instructors for not teaching something that is, at least officially, a 'bad thing.'

This sounds like a bit of a mess to me.

[Spitoon]

The trouble is, Mushroom_2, not every aircraft can do what yours does. When the controller is running aircraft on tight separations I guess most would prefer to use techniques that they are familiar with and which they are more in 'control' of. Most procedures are predicated on traditional navigation techniques too so controllers get relatively little experience of what aircraft will do. Give it time - things will change.

[FWA NATCA]

Wobblyprop,

I've also heard it called assigned heading.

Mike R
NATCA FWA

[ferris]

Yet more ignorance displayed by controllers here.

How can you bag instructors for teaching standard phraseology? The 'radar' part of 'radar heading is totally superfluous, non-standard and should not be used. Agree with Pprune Radar here.
(Foghorn- should have gone with your instincts and not told Genghis he was wrong!)

[foghorn]

Erm, a 'radar heading' as in common usage by UK ATCOs is still a heading and not track is it not, even if it is not in CAP413?

Or am I getting really confused now??

cheers!
foggy.

[ferris]

You mean as in "Turn left heading ..." etc. You will notice the word 'radar' is conspicuous by it's absence. It is not there, for good reason........it is totally superfluous.
When I was training, I used to whacked over the back of the head for using superfluous R/T, such as 'radar heading', 'from present position' etc.
Standardisation is meant to keep these sort of things from springing up and becoming common parlance.

Foghorn; All this confusion seems to be arising precisely because the term 'radar heading' is being used. If the (correct) term 'heading' was used, nobody would (should?) be confused by headings and tracks. So, maybe you were correct in challenging Genghis' statement, if there is a perception out there that 'true track' somehow comes into it, but don't provide incorrect gen. You know what it's like with the flying types- gotta speak slowly and keep it as simple as poss.;)

[Loki]

I don`t think I can remember encountering a situation where my use of the phrase "Radar heading " has been misunderstood. If it ain`t broke......

Though perhaps we might consider a return to the phraseology of an earler age.

"Shuttle six golf* vector zero two zero, angels twenty,buster" has a certain ring to it.

(perhaps that should be "George")

[shuttlebus]

Final 3 Greens

If RADAR HEADING is such a useful term and is in regular use by ATCOs, then why the h*ll doesn't someone do something about it and get it into CAP413 so that instructors can teach it.

From CAP 413...

Chapter 1 Glossary
1 Definitions
Radar Vectoring Provision of navigational guidance to aircraft in the form of specific headings, based on the use of radar.

Chapter 8 General Radar Phraseology
5 Radar Vectoring
5.1 Aircraft may be given specific vectors to fly in order to establish separation. Pilots may be informed of the reasons for radar vectoring.
5.2 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.
5.3 A controller may not know the aircraft’s heading but does require the aircraft to fly a particular heading.
5.4 When vectoring is complete, pilots will be instructed to resume their own navigation, given position information and appropriate instructions as necessary.

I have omitted the examples....

Hope this helps :D :D :D

Regards,

Shuttlebus

[bookworm]

So I roll up on your frequency tracking 20 degrees left of the XYZ waypoint you want to direct me through, and pitch in with "London G-ABCD FLxxx heading 160". You acknowledge briefly, and 30 seconds later I turn right 20 degrees. "G-ABCD I thought you were on a heading!?" you protest. "No G-ABCD was instructed direct XYZ -- just took a minute to ident it"

Whether or not you use the word "radar" as the discriminator, doesn't it make sense to distinguish between "the heading I have been assigned" and "the heading I happen to be on" in the phraseology?

[ayrprox]

bookworm,

In your example if you checked in with me and reported your heading, then I would assume that you were being given to me by the previous controller on that heading for a reason, I would not expect you to be on your own navigation. In your particular example I would expect you to state "turning direct XYZ". Stating your heading just confuses matters.

[ferris]

Which goes to show that assumption is the mother of f**k-ups, and the UK procedure is not as safe as some assume.

[Phoenix_X]

Mushroom_2, the a/c I fly (733 and 737) don't have any facility to fly a track. If ATC asked me to 'maintain my track' I'd have to continuously use the autopilot Heading mode to keep the trackline where it was.
This is probably just about as safe as flying on magnetic headings for separation, because one moment of distraction and we've drifted off our track into someone else....

[GroundBound]

Can't believe the discussion here!

Ferris is 100% right, and shuttlebus's extract from CAP413 also supports it. A heading is assigned by a controller to maintain horizontal separation, or to guide an aircraft to a particular point (as in approach sequencing to an ILS).

There is no requirement to report your heading to ATC on first call, unless you have been told to do so by the transferring unit, or until you are asked. When a controller puts an aircraft on a heading it should remain on that heading until another heading, or "resume navigation" instruction is given. If an aircraft is transferred to another frequency whilst still on a heading, it should report that heading on the new frequency.

The "radar heading" as discussed here is nothing other than a heading assigned by a radar controller for the above described purposes, and the word "radar" is superfluous and, obviously, confusing.

Perhaps my fellow UK persons should remember that there are a a lot of other places than just the UK, and that "standard phraseology" is there for a reason. Aeroplanes fly in many parts of the world, and the pilots should use, and expect to hear standard R/T. That's why we have that organistaion called ICAO!

[055166k]

I was following this with some interest ,having used "radar heading" for many trouble free years, until someone mentioned ICAO and standardisation. Well it all depends what and where you are. Rules at Heathrow for example are so different from the rules applied at Regional [hate that disgusting and derogatory term] airports that you would be forgiven for thinking you were in a foreign country. I've often suspected that the CAA consider that a race of super pilots exist and that they are the ones who fly in and out of the bigga-mega-airports and so as not to overburden them with super waffle trivial verbal overexcess it is all missed out.

[Vercingetorix]

Ferris
if it actually has no meaning how can it emphazise that you are under radar control ? Keep flying that Great Circle or should it be Rhumb (sic, rum in your case) line.

[ferris]

Well, genius, I was trying to explain the reasoning of the people who use it. If you actually follow the thread, I have been arguing against the use of the phrase 'radar heading'.
I realise English is a second language for you, but if you need clarifications in future, why not ask first instead of making a public fool of yourself.
By a danke, eh brew;)

[2 sheds]

It is quite pointless - and, as seen above, confusing - for a controller to ever use the expression "radar heading" to a pilot.

If the pilot is instructed to "fly heading 230" or "turn left, heading 230", what more is needed? That is perfectly clear and unambiguous, and if is controlled airspace, is an instruction with which the pilot must comply (other than to avoid immediate danger).

If outside CAS but under RAS, the pilot has already established a verbal contract, his part of the deal being that he will comply with "instructions" (which are actually advisory) until such time as he opts out of the agreement.

[055166k]

Here's an explanation as good as any. Area control used to be done by a procedural [ or "D" ] controller using a strip based system at an Area unit. He was assisted in his task by a radar controller, often at a remote location [ for instance where the radar was ] but sharing a common frequency. A scenario might be that the "D" instructed an aircraft to climb or descend where procedural separation existed; however when there was a requirement for the radar controller to implement the task then the radar controller might say "Beeline GAPEB radar, heading 270 degrees". Of course the pilot cannot see the comma and over the years it just became "radar heading 270" and was incorporated into air traffic lore as normal practice. How many times have you heard the phrase "Roger D" ? ..........One of the reasons that there appears to be a non standard application of some items of R/T phraseology could be age related, I was taught a certain set of phrases at the ATC college back in the early seventies and, in the case of my employer, you never go back for any kind of modernisation or upgrade; besides which I can honestly say that if it works why change it? If you don't understand just ask, we are here to help!

[2 sheds]

"One of the reasons that there appears to be a non standard application of some items of R/T phraseology could be age related, I was taught a certain set of phrases at the ATC college back in the early seventies and, in the case of my employer, you never go back for any kind of modernisation or upgrade; besides which I can honestly say that if it works why change it?"

You poor old chap.

I am sure that "radar heading" was never taught at rating level as an item of RTF phraseology. As far as modernisation is concerned, that is the very function of document amendments and AICs. It would be useful if more people read them and actioned them - the subject matter is not exactly rocket science!

[055166k]

Oh dear! Missed the point, or the comma to be more precise. The callsign of the radar controller was "xxxxRADAR", and the same was true of Approach as well as Area. That's where RADAR HEADING came from. Anyway thanks for the really useful tip on document amendments, unfortunately we don't get any at Swanwick and I have an awful job trying to remember the 467 amendments issued in the last year and a bit. By the way, I am only a "scope jockey" and I have always wanted to know why the UK has to have so many differences from ICAO. All eyes will wait with anticipation for your career-enhancing and politically correct reply.

[2 sheds]

166k

I understood your explanation perfectly, I just do not think that it sounds very plausible. As you said originally, "an explanation as good as any", though you later implied that it was THE explanation. Either way, it illustrates an appalling laxity if you think that "heading 230" constitutes an instruction.

If you do not get any document amendments at LACC, two points. Why are you not making a fuss with the management - or SRG - if you do not have amendments drawn to your attention, but how is it that you still complain about the number that you have to remember?

Back to the point. As has been said previously, there is no definition of the term "radar heading" and it does not feature in any standard phraseology. Hardly surprising then that some pilots are confused by it - it should not be used.

Neither does it feature in ICAO definitions or phraseology. I do not quite understand your question about UK differences. The UK, as well as many other states, files differences from ICAO terminology, standards and recommended practices because it believes that it has good reason. Admittedly, these can sometimes create as many problems as they solve, but would you argue with the logic of using "holding point" instead of "holding position" or "flight level one hundred" etc instead of "flight level one zero zero" etc - particularly, of course, if some clown is going to throw in "heading one one zero" without "degrees" or a specific instruction in the same transmission.

Do not quite understand your closing shot - what exactly is PC about everyone trying for a bit of accuracy and common understanding in the interest of safety? That's why the young pilot chappie started this thread.

[eyeinthesky]

2 sheds:

QUOTE
Back to the point. As has been said previously, there is no definition of the term "radar heading" and it does not feature in any standard phraseology. Hardly surprising then that some pilots are confused by it - it should not be used.
UNQUOTE

Sorry, but you are incorrect.

I have finally managed to check one of the (few) paper copies of MATS Part 1 at LACC and I came across the following:

Appendix E (Attach), Amendment 56 dated 31/1/03

Standard phrases:

Transfer on a heading : Report radar heading to (ATCU callsign) (frequency)


Seems to be fairly clear to me.;)

[ferris]

All that shows is that your MATS is incorrect. MATS is a subordinate document. Obviously updated by someone guilty of perpetuating the myth.;)

[romeowiz]

Is the term "Radar heading" commonly used by controllers?? We only know it from pilots to indicate they have been assigned a heading and not yet been released to resume own navigation. Controllers never use this phrase.

[radarcontrol]

Controllers do use this term, or they should. If phraseology is slack it'll often come out as just "fly [radar] heading" or "continue present heading [as a radar heading]".

RC

[055166k]

I think it's useful to have a few reflections about what we say and why. I take on board all contributions as they all have something going for them. After some thought and a little homework it seems to me that basic publications can provide a skeleton set of phrases, but using wake vortex as an example where the UK adopt of different set of separation protocols as determined by local [UK] evidence, so different ATC units use different phraseology that evidence has shown to be more useful in practice. One example is the stomach-churning expect levels:"Descend when ready Flight Level 270 expect Flight Level 140 40 miles before Ockham". Whoever thought that one up is not my friend; I'll never understand why we have to say it because it's all written down on the STAR OCK 1A/1F chart , not only that but we are not allowed to give the expect level point the way it is written on the STAR chart. In conclusion it would seem that as the complexity of the MATS part 2 grows it becomes further and further removed from any kind of standardisation.........and as far as RT goes......that is a bad thing!

[Chaos Controller]

Now I have been doing some homework for myself, and I have discovered that here in Norway the expression "radar heading" is not to be used anymore. This was former a fairly commonly used expression (and some of the older controllers still use it), but it is not any more standard phraseology (at least not here in Norway).
All aeronautical telecommunications over here are based on ICAO'a Annex 10, Volume II (Aeronautical telecommunictions), and ICAO's Doc 4444 PANS RAC / PANS ATM - and the latest edition released in Norway was published December 12th 2002, so they should be fairly up to date, but of course, there might still be other contries using this phraseology, but it is not international standard.

[ferris]

Radarcontrol- perhaps you should re-read the entire thread before you make a bigger fool of yourself. Why should controllers say 'radar heading'? It is a superfluous word. It is the use of this phrase that is slack, not the other way around. This thread was started by a confused pilot, so maybe you guys ought to have a think about some of the procedures you are using and the lack of standardisation. It seems it has even spread to your MATS! This is a classic example of a latent failure, just waiting for the right set of circumstances to come along and bite you.

[Bright-Ling]

Here is where the confusion starts:

CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1
E(Attach)Page 10 - Phraseology (31 July 2002,Amdt 54)

Under Vectoring

Continue present heading.

Continue present heading and report that heading.

Continue heading (three digits).

Turn left/right heading (three digits).

Turn left/right (number)degrees and report heading.

Fly heading (three digits).

Stop turn heading (three digits).

Continue turn heading (three digits).

Leave (significant point)heading (three digits).

crossing left to right/right to left indicating above/below/similar
height,if not sighted turn left/right heading (three digits).

heading (three digits)traffic at (number)o ’clock (distance)miles
opposite direction/crossing left to right/right to left (level
information).

........no mention of the word RADAR in front of heading.

HOWEVER:

Transfer on a Heading

Report radar heading to (ATCU callsign) (Frequency)


As I understand it - the word RADAR was deleted as it was seen to be superfluous some years ago. The MATS Pt1 seems not to have been updated correctly.

From my experience, it is the older ATCO's who were taught it and still use it - but the younger ATCO's don't.

Is Bernoulli (the absolute authority from the College of ATC) able to confirm my hunch??

For the record - I DON'T say "radar heading"!

[BALIX]

Gosh, what a lot of emotion about one little word.

Although simply using the word "heading" has usually been sufficient, I've used the phrase "radar heading" on occasions over the past twenty years, just to emphasize that the heading is indeed one assigned by the radar controller (ie, me). And do you know what? Not once has slipping the 'R' word into a transmission caused the slightest bit of confusion.

All that time and I didn't know I was doing it wrong. I hope no one tells my LCE...