Fly Radar heading...

[trafficcontrol]

Just wondered when and why Controllers use the term Radar heading...
Is it so as the aircraft don't question why you are giving them a turn? So they don't have to worry about traffic etc?

Please explain.

cheers,
Sam

[Spitoon]

It's non-standard and sometimes just a habit - other times it's to stress that the aircraft is getting a radar service.

The real use is to indicate that the aircraft should continue that heading until the controller says otherwise, i.e. to take an aircraft off its own nav, or the time that it is really useful is just after the controller has asked "what's your heading?" and then wants you to carry on in that direction.





Oh, and sometimes its 'cos the controller is new to radar and it's fun!

[trafficcontrol]

Does that mean that its a bad thing to use the term often?

[Spitoon]

It's non-standard so technically it's a bad thing to use it at all I guess.




Just give a little while and you'll see that some people have very strong feelings on the topic!

[rolaaand]

I work at Scottish and it's something that i hear from a lot of my colleagues,which I always thought was non standard phraseology. I think "continue present heading" or "fly heading" is the correct phraseology and is completely unambiguous. There have been several threads on Pprune along the lines of "When is a heading a radar heading"...etc,so it obviously causes confusion!
However,I have recently become an OJTI(on the job training instructor) so I have been brushing up on a bit of bookwork. In my MATS2 in black and white are the conditions under which Scottish can transfer traffic to London and Manchester on "radar headings"
Either the MATS2 has non standard phraseology within it or I have been wrong for the past six years-I'm not sure now!

[anotherthing]

Rolaaand

you have not been wrong the phraseology is not standard for use over the R/T, but that does not mean you cannot transfer an A/C on a 'Radar Heading'!

I think the way some ATCOs work is what causes this phrase to be used. "Report your heading" promptly followed by "continue as a radar heading" is often heard..... why - if the heading is good, they do not need to know what that heading is before making the pilot stick to it.

It can be done in one transmission with the phrase "continue present heading, report it" or if when assessing the track a turn is needed "turn L/R XX degress and report the heading"

I suppose it could stem back to the days of part radar, part procedural, when you could maybe have locked an A/C onto a particular heading when it was tracking to/from a VOR without recourse to radar,but I honestly don't know how that would have worked without some radar back up. Maybe one of the older members can enlighten us - Alzheimers permitting.

[MancBoy]

I once had a trainee who used to say "continue present heading as a radar heading and report the heading".

What a mouthful, didn't help him out when busy and unsurprisingly he didn't make it at our place.

[Gonzo]

MancBoy,

I sat with an ATCO who used to say that all the time on my OJT...wonder if it was the same person?

[Data Dad]

To add to Rolaaand's comment....

From MATS Part 1, E(Attach)-12 (The phraseology bit... ) Under "Transfer on a heading"

"Report radar heading to (ATCU callsign) (frequency)."

DD

[MancBoy]

Gonzo, where was that at?

Aberdeen or Luton are the only possibilties if they were valid.

[songbird29]

I suppose it could stem back to the days of part radar, part procedural, when you could maybe have locked an A/C onto a particular heading when it was tracking to/from a VOR without recourse to radar,but I honestly don't know how that would have worked without some radar back up. Maybe one of the older members can enlighten us - Alzheimers permitting.

I'd think 'anotherthing' is right.

I started ATC OJT from behind the Procedural Flight Progress Board. When I got my licence the system had meanwhile switched to full radar service.
In procedural times, a radar man (late sixties men only, women's lib still in its infancy) was available in a darkened part of the opsroom, usually feet on the table and sipping his umpteen's coffee. He had to be asked via intercom to solve or expedite a problem. When he came into action he used the same frequency and probably distinguished his heading instructions from the procedural clearances by adding the word 'radar'.

Procedural controllers may only clear a/c via flight planned route or significant points. Vectoring instructions may only be given by radar control. Positive control, as the Americans said, I have always liked that term and regretted we didn't use it in Europe. Main vectoring instructions prescribed by ICAO PANS/RAC are:
-'continue heading (three digits)', which implies that the controller has to ask the heading first, otherwise he wouldn't know which digits to continue;
-'continue present heading';
-'fly heading (three digits)'.

Uncertainty might arise when the a/c is transferred to annother freq and has to report his heading to the new station. Since each aircraft is always on a heading, the receiving controller will not know whether the reported heading was instructed by ATC or not. The term 'radar heading' makes that clear. It may not be in the books, but imho it precludes a misunderstanding or worse.

Admittedly it gives rise to forum discussions. But that's better than a discussion on the frequency.

[DFC]

Originally Posted by songbird29

I'd think 'anotherthing' is right.
I started ATC OJT from behind the Procedural Flight Progress Board. When I got my licence the system had meanwhile switched to full radar service.
In procedural times, a radar man (late sixties men only, women's lib still in its infancy) was available in a darkened part of the opsroom, usually feet on the table and sipping his umpteen's coffee. He had to be asked via intercom to solve or expedite a problem. When he came into action he used the same frequency and probably distinguished his heading instructions from the procedural clearances by adding the word 'radar'.
Procedural controllers may only clear a/c via flight planned route or significant points.

While it is very hard these days to find a controller who remembers how to do it, in the past, procedural controllers provided headings:

To separate departing aircraft and arriving aircraft and to provide navigational assistance and approach procedure guidance to aircraft using Direction Finding Equipment (VDF).

Since as quoted above most of todays ATC phraseology and to a large extent procedures were put in place a long time ago, the QGH / ATC use of the VDF is an example of when heading are issued by a controller without any radar.

Furthermore, the phraseology (seldom heard these days);

Fly heading.........vectoring for trafffic.

For identification turn right heading........

Turn right heading......track adjustment

The only possible confusion arrises from the fact that controllers issue headings without giving the reason and thus the pilot is not aware if the heading is to avoid traffic, take a short-cut, position towards the final approach or whatever.

Regards,

DFC

[5milesbaby]

I have to admit I've said it occasionally in the past, but have no idea why! Its probably something I've heard the old boys use and every now and then it slips in. Possibilities could be that I'm using a radar and giving you a heading but I know its not right - but who knows what goes on in the mind of an ATCO - we certainly don't!!!

trafficcontrol - I'll never explain why I'm using a heading so its definately not that. If a pilot doesn't understand why I'm using headings then he/she needs a visit to a centre last year.

[rolaaand]

Originally Posted by DFC

The only possible confusion arrises from the fact that controllers issue headings without giving the reason and thus the pilot is not aware if the heading is to avoid traffic, take a short-cut, position towards the final approach or whatever.
Regards,
DFC

I understand what you are saying here DFC-pilots like to have as much situational awareness as they can.But I rarely explain why I'm putting traffic on a heading,because there just isn't enough time on the r/t to do so. If it's an unusual heading like a 90 degree turn off route due to emergency descent traffic above,then I'll explain-because the pilot needs to know.
"Radar heading" is in my part 2 and Data Dad has quoted it from the part1!
If it is indeed non-standard then I wonder how it has found it's way into the air traffic bibles?
Unless my LCE tells me that I'm wrong then I shall continue to instruct aircraft to "fly heading" without using the pointless and superfluous word "radar".

[BlueSkye]

To instruct a pilot to fly a radar heading always brings the question to mind when I hear "Climb/descent to FLXXX and maintain". AS OPPOSED TO... I.E. There is no such thing as a radar heading. If you are under radar control all headings are radar derived. If you are under procedural control headings have no use, as no procedural separation standards utilize headings, but tracks.

Also, whenever an aircraft is taken of its flightplanned route by means of a heading, a reason for this must be provided. "to facilitate climb, turn left heading 180 degrees." Approach control will circumnavigate this in some cases as most STARs state to expect radar vectors for the LLZ.

Finally, how many out there provide the track required back to the next fix on the flightplan route if you took them of that original route?

[Talla Radar]

The only place "Radar Heading" appears in MATS1 is "report radar heading to....". This appeared in MATS1 a number of years ago in response to an incident, when an aircraft turned back onto his own navigation on transfer to another unit.

I was the victim of the phrase "radar heading" about 5 years ago. I had (correctly) instructed a southbound aircraft to "continue present heading", to provide separation from a northbound aircraft. The southbound aircraft reached his next turning point, turned off the instructed heading and immediately came into conflict with the northbound. A rapid avoiding action turn resulted! During the investigation the pilot stated that he had not been told to fly a "radar heading", so he turned. Madness, I know, but that is what he said.

I have tried repeatedly to get the phrase "radar heading" either outlawed, or adopted as standard phraseology, I honestly don't mind which. The MATS1 editor who added the pharseology "report radar heading" was just plain wrong in my mind, all he did was muddy the waters even more.

[Pierre Argh]

Report your heading"..... why - if the heading is good, they do not need to know what that heading is before making the pilot stick to it.

true in most cases, but when the Controller needs to make a subsequent small adjustment to hdg it can be mildly embarassing to say, for example, "Turn right five degrees heading 120" for the pilot to then reply "I'm already heading 125?" (it happens)

[KiloKilo]

Not from the book but more from experience. When I transfer an aircraft on a heading like; report your heading to XXX on 000.000 they sometimes correct their heading so it suits them better of even go on own navigation to an exotic point
Never had that happen when I said; report your radar heading to XXX on 000.000

So although it should not be used etc etc. It does help sometimes. Had a real nasty situation once when somebody turned direct although the correct phraseology was used. I know officially it is then pilot error but I rather use something different (that is real close) and have no situation at all.

[KiloKilo]

Originally Posted by Pierre Argh

true in most cases, but when the Controller needs to make a subsequent small adjustment to hdg it can be mildly embarassing to say, for example, "Turn right five degrees heading 120" for the pilot to then reply "I'm already heading 125?" (it happens)

A real Homer Simpson moment!

Subsequent action is to transfer that aircraft ASAP to a different sector.

[anotherthing]

Pierre...

read my next paragraph!!! The bit where I state phraseology "Continue present heading, report it"..... I think that covers what you are saying adequately!!!!!!