Saying "Degrees" after hdg
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Camberley, Surrey, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saying "Degrees" after hdg
I understand that after ATC issue a heading change you add the word "degrees" only if the hdg ends with a 0......e.g. hdg 360 degrees......otherwise you don't...e.g hdg 345........
I have heard from someone that that has apparently changed recently and you have to add "degrees" to ALL hdg changes? Is this true and if so does anyone have a link to the document that shows this?
Also, does that now apply to "millibars" or is that still the same, e.g, only when pressure below 1000........??
thanks!
I have heard from someone that that has apparently changed recently and you have to add "degrees" to ALL hdg changes? Is this true and if so does anyone have a link to the document that shows this?
Also, does that now apply to "millibars" or is that still the same, e.g, only when pressure below 1000........??
thanks!
Buttonpusher
Sounds like a good idea, for some of us on this side of the pond, Hectopascals can be easily interpreted as inches without the Hpa readback .....with some spectacular results !!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to MATS Part 1 (new edition 22 Nov 07)...
'Millibar shall be appended to figures when giving a pressure setting below 1000mb, or in cases where confusion or ambiguity may exist' - so that hasn't changed.
Also 'with the exception of those transmissions used for surveillance or precision radar approaches, 'degrees' shall be appended to heading figures where the heading ends in zero, or in cases where confusion or ambiguity may exist' - so again that doesn't appear to have altered!
So you (rather than the 'someone' you mention) are correct!
'Millibar shall be appended to figures when giving a pressure setting below 1000mb, or in cases where confusion or ambiguity may exist' - so that hasn't changed.
Also 'with the exception of those transmissions used for surveillance or precision radar approaches, 'degrees' shall be appended to heading figures where the heading ends in zero, or in cases where confusion or ambiguity may exist' - so again that doesn't appear to have altered!
So you (rather than the 'someone' you mention) are correct!
A proposal was put to the UK Phraesology Working Group by NATS that 'degrees' be appended to all heading changes, but the group decided it was not necessary.
It could still become a NATS requirement however, after all, the requirement to use runway intersections for every runway entry clearance is restricted to NATS whereas MATS Pt 1 only requires it for intermediate entry points, not runway end ones.
It could still become a NATS requirement however, after all, the requirement to use runway intersections for every runway entry clearance is restricted to NATS whereas MATS Pt 1 only requires it for intermediate entry points, not runway end ones.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YAWN...why o why do we have to change every regulation when an incident happens....JUST in case it happens again. Why can't we adopt robust SM and have the courage to stand up and say....
-Passing a QNH of 999 to a UK registered aircraft or with a known UK crew is HIGHLY unlikely to be interpreted as 29.99 and therefore the risk is extremely low...
-Instructing an aircraft to turn right heading 340 is HIGHLY unlikely to be interpreted as FL340 and therefore the risk is extremely low....
Seems to me that in it's quest for the eradication of SSE 1 & 2 (and therefore human error) NATS is forcing the regulator into a corner whereby the ability to look at an incident and it's causal/contributory factors and say (This ones down to pilot/controller buffoonery or both) and the rules as they are, are fine, is long gone.
Skill and experience will help you out of a sticky situation....over regulation will just tie your hands........
Someone pass me another ATSIN, this one is no longer absorbent!
Fred – only posting this cause I’m feeling a bit militant today!
-Passing a QNH of 999 to a UK registered aircraft or with a known UK crew is HIGHLY unlikely to be interpreted as 29.99 and therefore the risk is extremely low...
-Instructing an aircraft to turn right heading 340 is HIGHLY unlikely to be interpreted as FL340 and therefore the risk is extremely low....
Seems to me that in it's quest for the eradication of SSE 1 & 2 (and therefore human error) NATS is forcing the regulator into a corner whereby the ability to look at an incident and it's causal/contributory factors and say (This ones down to pilot/controller buffoonery or both) and the rules as they are, are fine, is long gone.
Skill and experience will help you out of a sticky situation....over regulation will just tie your hands........
Someone pass me another ATSIN, this one is no longer absorbent!
Fred – only posting this cause I’m feeling a bit militant today!
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's NATS internal best practice* to use to "degrees" after all headings and "millibars" after all pressures, hence why you'll hear this a lot in the UK.
*at least it is at certain recently relocated south coast units anyway.
*at least it is at certain recently relocated south coast units anyway.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EPKT
Age: 44
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how often "turn right heading 020 degrees" would get misinterpreted as "turn right by 20 degrees". Probably way more often then heading 340 will be confused with FL340...
In the same time, official ICAO phrase is still "descend to five thousand". I don't think phraseology guys are doing their best job...
PS. And we still have no protection from confusing squawks and CTOT times, it happened to me two times already! ;)
In the same time, official ICAO phrase is still "descend to five thousand". I don't think phraseology guys are doing their best job...
PS. And we still have no protection from confusing squawks and CTOT times, it happened to me two times already! ;)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was in CHIRP recently and I followed it up with the issue of 'Millibars' being mentioned with pressure settings above 1000 mbs - which CAP 413 does not require.
At the moment, there are double standards between ATCOs and Flight Crew since NATS 'Best Practice' is not identical to CAP413 which is what us pilots use.
We are told in CAP413 that degrees should only be used after headings that end in Zero however NATS deem that all headings should end in degrees and are putting pressure on the CAA to bring it in as a nationwide policy. Also it seems that new NATS Aerodrome controllers fresh from Bournemouth are using Millibars after any pressure setting - regardless of what it is. I don't have a problem with that but what I do find confusing is what do we read back? As a pressure setting should we be reading back 'QNHXXXX Millibars' when CAP 413 says that we don't need to if the value is 1000 mbs or more.
What do we tell our First Officers to say? Are we now in times when crew should now be reading MATS Part 1 rather than CAP413 for guidance?
At the moment, there are double standards between ATCOs and Flight Crew since NATS 'Best Practice' is not identical to CAP413 which is what us pilots use.
We are told in CAP413 that degrees should only be used after headings that end in Zero however NATS deem that all headings should end in degrees and are putting pressure on the CAA to bring it in as a nationwide policy. Also it seems that new NATS Aerodrome controllers fresh from Bournemouth are using Millibars after any pressure setting - regardless of what it is. I don't have a problem with that but what I do find confusing is what do we read back? As a pressure setting should we be reading back 'QNHXXXX Millibars' when CAP 413 says that we don't need to if the value is 1000 mbs or more.
What do we tell our First Officers to say? Are we now in times when crew should now be reading MATS Part 1 rather than CAP413 for guidance?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LHR
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-Instructing an aircraft to turn right heading 340 is HIGHLY unlikely to be interpreted as FL340 and therefore the risk is extremely low....
What does help enormously are (in order of effectiveness):
1) Giving the instructions in separate transmissions
2) If not possible due congestion, sticking us on a heading ending in a 5.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way things are going we will have to say climb Flight level 140,on 1013 millibar/hectopascals.
We have to say degrees (best practice) to helis that have spent their entire trip below Flight levels.They introduced degrees after headings that end in zero,but completely forgot about quadrantal levels.It's just more and more confusion,when splitting the instructions is far safer.
Surely the word heading means what it says.
We have to say degrees (best practice) to helis that have spent their entire trip below Flight levels.They introduced degrees after headings that end in zero,but completely forgot about quadrantal levels.It's just more and more confusion,when splitting the instructions is far safer.
Surely the word heading means what it says.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: EGTT/FAB/LGW/BOH/FAB/LGW
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Also it seems that new NATS Aerodrome controllers fresh from Bournemouth are using Millibars after any pressure setting"
The college is teaching the practice of only saying the word Millibars when the pressure is less than 1000.
The college is teaching the practice of only saying the word Millibars when the pressure is less than 1000.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The college is teaching the practice of only saying the word Millibars when the pressure is less than 1000.
I personally don't have an issue with using degrees or millibars but the key issue for us flight crew is that we are being drawn away from our framework document (CAP 413) which conflicts with what we are being told on the R/T. Do we read back 'Millibars' after high QNH values or do we simply read back the QNH itself which CAP 413 mandates.
Sorry to some of the ATCOs that may view this as splitting hairs, but this could be a corker of a discussion for a line check if the trainer was particularly hot on his R/T! Who is right and who is wrong?
Think it may be time to ask the ATS folks at the CAA!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At our unit best practice says that we use millibar for any QNH setting on ''first contact''.However if you listen to the ATIS,the robot puts millibar in automatically.All we are doing is confirming a QNH already copied on an ATIS.
We now have Nats best practice R/T,which contradicts CAA/SRG.Just look at the ILS phraseology ATSIN.It's getting to the stage that the confusing differences are more unsafe than the so-called problem.
We now have Nats best practice R/T,which contradicts CAA/SRG.Just look at the ILS phraseology ATSIN.It's getting to the stage that the confusing differences are more unsafe than the so-called problem.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<-Passing a QNH of 999 to a UK registered aircraft or with a known UK crew is HIGHLY unlikely to be interpreted as 29.99 and therefore the risk is extremely low...>>
Well, Fred, I might be out of the circus now... but if I had a quid for every American pilot who read back a low QNH to me in inches I'd be on a yacht in the Caribbean!
During the many years I did the job I always said "millibars" and "degrees", sometimes to the amusement of my younger colleagues. What's the big problem?
Well, Fred, I might be out of the circus now... but if I had a quid for every American pilot who read back a low QNH to me in inches I'd be on a yacht in the Caribbean!
During the many years I did the job I always said "millibars" and "degrees", sometimes to the amusement of my younger colleagues. What's the big problem?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: next door to the pub
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
degrees, millibars, etc
Who ever came up with the phrase 'best practice' wants shooting!! If it's in CAP 413 then that's the way to go, not whatever some ATS provider can think up.
'Best practice' is just removing tools from a controllers tool box, if it's not in the rule book then we should ignore it.
FT
'Best practice' is just removing tools from a controllers tool box, if it's not in the rule book then we should ignore it.
FT
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mister Geezer:
Yes.
Fly Through:
My 'rule book' also consists of CAP493 and MATS Part Two. My Part Two has R/T that CAP413 doesn't. My Part Two says that I have to include the word 'millibars' when I pass any QNH.
Sounds like 'best practice' at your unit isn't handled very well if it 'removes tools' rather than promotes defensive controlling and TRM.
do we simply read back the QNH itself which CAP 413 mandates.
Fly Through:
Who ever came up with the phrase 'best practice' wants shooting!! If it's in CAP 413 then that's the way to go, not whatever some ATS provider can think up.
'Best practice' is just removing tools from a controllers tool box, if it's not in the rule book then we should ignore it.
'Best practice' is just removing tools from a controllers tool box, if it's not in the rule book then we should ignore it.
Sounds like 'best practice' at your unit isn't handled very well if it 'removes tools' rather than promotes defensive controlling and TRM.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: next door to the pub
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not referring to a particular unit, as I've been at a few 
but I can understand when pilots get confused over the correct rt then. Any particular reason your unit decided to go it's own way?
Best practice is taking us more and more to 'controlling by numbers' and taking the discretion/initiative out of it, IMHO.
FT
but I can understand when pilots get confused over the correct rt then. Any particular reason your unit decided to go it's own way?Best practice is taking us more and more to 'controlling by numbers' and taking the discretion/initiative out of it, IMHO.
FT
Safety might be better served if we all spoke accurate but plain English. "Best practice" is a nonsensical term, an attempt to claim authority. Who is to say what is best? It seems to me that it is an excuse for someone to promote his/her own ideas, well intentioned perhaps, but certainly not necessarily "best". If something really is "best", then it should be a requirement, in whatever manual is appropriate. What price on these "best practice" theories when it is later demonstrated that they are less than perfect?
Neither am I impressed with "tools in a controller's toolbox" - who started this nonsense?
Neither am I impressed with "tools in a controller's toolbox" - who started this nonsense?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I suggest keeping the word "degrees" only for the amount of degrees right/left asked eg. "Speedbird123, turn right 10 degrees."
For other vectors, use the word "heading". eg. Speedbird123, fly Heading 010".
This avoids ambiguity and I practice this and try to convince others to follow, regardless what the official rules in the UK are.
For other vectors, use the word "heading". eg. Speedbird123, fly Heading 010".
This avoids ambiguity and I practice this and try to convince others to follow, regardless what the official rules in the UK are.