Heading Readback
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heading Readback
Hi,
Just a quick question about heading readbacks. Am I right in thinking that if the heading ends in 0 then you should say degrees but if it doesn't end in 0 then you can just readback the heading.
So:
fly heading 180 degrees
fly heading 185
Is this correct?
Cheers in advance,
TSP3
Just a quick question about heading readbacks. Am I right in thinking that if the heading ends in 0 then you should say degrees but if it doesn't end in 0 then you can just readback the heading.
So:
fly heading 180 degrees
fly heading 185
Is this correct?
Cheers in advance,
TSP3
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The degrees thing came into the UK as the "done" thing just before I left. If my memory serves me correct, what you have posted is correct. Supposed to stop the chances of confusing a heading instruction and an altitude instruction........
Pitty if you're using altitudes/flight levels that end in a 5.
Pitty if you're using altitudes/flight levels that end in a 5.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tsp3 you have it right, and it is what we in TC call "best practice". We try and steer clear (pardon the pun) of using whole headings as well (180, 270 etc),but that's not always possible.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as you prefix the readback with "fly heading" or "heading", that's OK.
To reply "Roger 180" or "roger 185" requires us to come back and correct you - a waste of our time, yours, and everyone elses.
To reply "Roger 180" or "roger 185" requires us to come back and correct you - a waste of our time, yours, and everyone elses.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prefix the readback with "fly heading"
Another example of verbal diarrhea that is clogging up our R/T.
Like "altitute" 4,000 feet - What a waste of R/T time - that's why we say "Flight Level" if its not! Why do both?
This sort of excessive "a$$ guarding" is dreamt up be people who can see ambugity in anything or love the sound of their own voice.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like "altitute" 4,000 feet - What a waste of R/T time - that's why we say "Flight Level" if its not! Why do both? This sort of excessive "a$$ guarding" is dreamt up be people who can see ambugity in anything or love the sound of their own voice.
RT Discipline Safety Sense leaflet
INCIDENT 3
A foreign ATC unit cleared an aircraft for descent and a procedural approach using the phrase ‘Descend two four zero zero, cleared for NDB approach’. It was night, there was no radar available, and the flight was following a procedural approach which commenced at the NDB at 2400 feet amsl. The pilot read back ‘OK, four zero zero’. Playback of the cockpit voice recorder indicated that the pilots received a momentary GPWS warning 20 seconds before impact as it passed through 700 feet amsl during the descent. A further continuous GPWS alert continued from 8 seconds before impact until the aircraft crashed into a wooded hillside at 437 feet amsl. It is evident that no action was taken on either GPWS warning and the aircraft was destroyed, killing all on board. The impact point was 1 nm before the NDB and 8 nm from touchdown.
RT Causal Factors
• The pilot misheard this as a clearance to descend ‘to’ 400 feet
amsl.
• The pilot’s readback was nonstandard.
• ATC did not hear the incorrect readback and so failed to correct
the error.
Note: In the UK, to prevent such occurrences, clearances to climb and descend are to include the expression ‘Flight Level’, ‘Altitude’ or ‘Height’. The word ‘to’ after the verb must be used when clearing an aircraft to an altitude or height; it should not be used when a flight level is involved. Thus the above example would be passed as ‘Descend to Altitude two thousand four hundred feet ...’.
A foreign ATC unit cleared an aircraft for descent and a procedural approach using the phrase ‘Descend two four zero zero, cleared for NDB approach’. It was night, there was no radar available, and the flight was following a procedural approach which commenced at the NDB at 2400 feet amsl. The pilot read back ‘OK, four zero zero’. Playback of the cockpit voice recorder indicated that the pilots received a momentary GPWS warning 20 seconds before impact as it passed through 700 feet amsl during the descent. A further continuous GPWS alert continued from 8 seconds before impact until the aircraft crashed into a wooded hillside at 437 feet amsl. It is evident that no action was taken on either GPWS warning and the aircraft was destroyed, killing all on board. The impact point was 1 nm before the NDB and 8 nm from touchdown.
RT Causal Factors
• The pilot misheard this as a clearance to descend ‘to’ 400 feet
amsl.
• The pilot’s readback was nonstandard.
• ATC did not hear the incorrect readback and so failed to correct
the error.
Note: In the UK, to prevent such occurrences, clearances to climb and descend are to include the expression ‘Flight Level’, ‘Altitude’ or ‘Height’. The word ‘to’ after the verb must be used when clearing an aircraft to an altitude or height; it should not be used when a flight level is involved. Thus the above example would be passed as ‘Descend to Altitude two thousand four hundred feet ...’.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't do the 'altitude' thing here in Oz, but we all should listen to the readback, whatever we told them.
On the other hand it makes me cringe every time I hear "descend TO 4,000" so there would be a safety benefit of doing so.
"Birdseed444, turn right heading 125, climb to FL200, contact center 124.2."
"125, 200, 124.2, 444, fark!"
On the other hand it makes me cringe every time I hear "descend TO 4,000" so there would be a safety benefit of doing so.
"Birdseed444, turn right heading 125, climb to FL200, contact center 124.2."
"125, 200, 124.2, 444, fark!"
<<This sort of excessive "a$$ guarding" is dreamt up be people who can see ambugity in anything or love the sound of their own voice.>>
Considering the percentage of hull losses/fatalities due to CFIT, this is one area where we all should be more pedantic.
Considering the percentage of hull losses/fatalities due to CFIT, this is one area where we all should be more pedantic.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Jerricho says what about Flight Levels that end in 5.Operating in Class F or G airspace we often use quadrantal levels that end in 5.Fl 85 is a standard clearances out of here.
We often use instruction that have both headings that have 5 and levels with 5. Fly(swim,drive)heading 345,climb FL 85.
No one can give me any answer to why this was introduced,apart from it was thought up by people who have no idea that controllers have to use Class F and G airspace
We often use instruction that have both headings that have 5 and levels with 5. Fly(swim,drive)heading 345,climb FL 85.
No one can give me any answer to why this was introduced,apart from it was thought up by people who have no idea that controllers have to use Class F and G airspace
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dyce, you're probably not too far from the truth 
Seriously though, I remember whe the "best practice" was introduced, and as Barry points out, the suggestion was made to try and avoid using headings that ended in a zero (hence the tacking of degrees onto the end)
Karank has posted something interesting regarding readbacks.....
I know I can be guilty of it , but giving instructions AND a frequency change is never the best idea in the world. 'Tis really frowned upon in UK. Seems a standard thing here in Canada. Elsewhere?
Seriously though, I remember whe the "best practice" was introduced, and as Barry points out, the suggestion was made to try and avoid using headings that ended in a zero (hence the tacking of degrees onto the end)
Karank has posted something interesting regarding readbacks.....
"turn right heading 125, climb to FL200, contact center 124.2."
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always used to use "heading 085, 095, 105" etc. I found it far less ambiguous to use an extra 5 degrees which could not be misenterpretated from a flight level. But aviation only makes rules following incidents, in my view protect yourself and ensure that there are no ambiguous instructions. At the end of the day it is your licence.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: LTCC
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The use of headings ending in 5 or the word degrees if the heading ended in 0 became best practice at LTCC at a time where about 10% of reported level busts were caused by pilots confusing a level and heading instruction in the same transmission. The best practice has now become mandatory at LTCC but I'm not sure about other units.
Level and heading confusion now accounts for less than 1% of reported level busts.
Level and heading confusion now accounts for less than 1% of reported level busts.
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When ATC gives you a heading instruction, are pilots expected to use the term "radar heading" in their readback?
ie "ABC123 fly heading 075"
"Radar Heading 075 ABC123"
ie "ABC123 fly heading 075"
"Radar Heading 075 ABC123"
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The word "radar" is not necessary when referring to headings. You won't find it in any of our unit instructions.
"ABC123 fly heading 075"
"Fly heading 075 ABC123"
Straightforward.
For those who prefer to clog up the RT you may hear "ABC123 make your present heading a radar heading" What they should be saying is "ABC123 continue present heading".
My 2p worth...
"ABC123 fly heading 075"
"Fly heading 075 ABC123"
Straightforward.
For those who prefer to clog up the RT you may hear "ABC123 make your present heading a radar heading" What they should be saying is "ABC123 continue present heading".
My 2p worth...
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but giving instructions AND a frequency change is never the best idea in the world
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think the "Heading" vs "Radar heading" thing has been more than done to death over the years....if anybody is still remotely interested then search it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
