RWY heading/RWY track/straight ahead
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South of Beirut, North of Aden
Age: 46
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
Actually now I think about it everything hurts.....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: home
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Maintain runway track". Well a track must have a starting point... in this case what is the starting point ?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tournesol
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,
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,
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tween Hurn&Filton
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: home
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The magnetic bearing from a station is called QDR.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
