Maintain Runway Heading
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maintain Runway Heading
When ATC request an aircraft to maintain runway heading after take-off do they expect the pilot to make a correction for wind or are they happy for him to fly the runway heading and drift with the wind. If so how would a controller with no radar know the exact location of the aircraft for separation purposes.
Tolka
Tolka
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC should never ask you to maintain runway heading.
You maintain levels.
You continue on headings.
I think this has been covered before, but:-
1. Continue on R/W heading implies fly the published runway QDR.
2. Climb straight ahead implies the same as 'track extended R/W centre-line'.
I could be wrong though.
Many years ago, the TWR controller (non-radar) at my local airport would issue climb 'straight ahead' clearances to separate IFR and SVFR traffic. However, the instruction always originated from a radar environment, that is it was passed on behalf of the approach, or (occasionally) area radar controller.
You maintain levels.
You continue on headings.
I think this has been covered before, but:-
1. Continue on R/W heading implies fly the published runway QDR.
2. Climb straight ahead implies the same as 'track extended R/W centre-line'.
I could be wrong though.
Many years ago, the TWR controller (non-radar) at my local airport would issue climb 'straight ahead' clearances to separate IFR and SVFR traffic. However, the instruction always originated from a radar environment, that is it was passed on behalf of the approach, or (occasionally) area radar controller.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tolka,
In fact thinking back, I am partially incorrect with the last statement.
The TWR controller at the airport in question could also apply the 'climb straight ahead, restriction' to traffic for separation against aircraft, (usually VFR/SVFR outbounds, which had taken off ahead of the 'restricted' aircraft), that were unknown to approach radar.
This was because, depending on the runway in use, the upwind half of the CTR was delegated to the tower. I believe the TWR controller had to have a valid procedural (ie non-radar) approach rating to provide this separation.
In fact thinking back, I am partially incorrect with the last statement.
The TWR controller at the airport in question could also apply the 'climb straight ahead, restriction' to traffic for separation against aircraft, (usually VFR/SVFR outbounds, which had taken off ahead of the 'restricted' aircraft), that were unknown to approach radar.
This was because, depending on the runway in use, the upwind half of the CTR was delegated to the tower. I believe the TWR controller had to have a valid procedural (ie non-radar) approach rating to provide this separation.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 26th May 2009 at 14:46.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my straight ahead or your straight ahead
In the cockpit, with a strong cross wind, my straight ahead, would take drift in to account.
Yours would not.
The original question remains.
Yours would not.
The original question remains.
In the US you will get a "Fly runway heading" clearance at times. That means exactly what it says, look at your heading indicator when you line up and fly that heading. Yes, you'll drift, everyone will drift.
A controller without radar will know you are between the runway and your first reporting point.
A controller without radar will know you are between the runway and your first reporting point.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today I was issued with 'climb on runway track' by a switched-on Farnborough controller. Specific enough for me.
'Runway Track' could not be affected by drift.
'Runway Heading' could be affected by drift.
'Straight Ahead' does not seem to be defined.
Basically either instruction might be used by ATC to prevent any SID/SDR/NPR turn.
'Runway Track' could not be affected by drift.
'Runway Heading' could be affected by drift.
'Straight Ahead' does not seem to be defined.
Basically either instruction might be used by ATC to prevent any SID/SDR/NPR turn.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a thriving maritime community
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anyhow to cut the long story short, in the UK "straight ahead" means
"track extended runway centerline" (when used in departure clearances)
or
"continue on final approach track" (when given in missed approach procedures)
(as seen in MATS part 1)
As far as I can search in my pdf copy of my Mats 1, "runway heading" is not used in the UK. Likewise, "runway track" might be used at Farnborough, but is not featured in MATS part 1
"track extended runway centerline" (when used in departure clearances)
or
"continue on final approach track" (when given in missed approach procedures)
(as seen in MATS part 1)
As far as I can search in my pdf copy of my Mats 1, "runway heading" is not used in the UK. Likewise, "runway track" might be used at Farnborough, but is not featured in MATS part 1
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ivor is correct.
'Straight ahead' is defined in MATS Part 1, which is, of course, intended for reference by ATCOs.
For aircrew, 'Straight Ahead' is similarly defined in CAP413.
Neither 'Runway Heading' nor 'Runway Track' appear in CAP413.
Take back what I wrote, I shall remonstrate with said Farnborough operative.
'Straight Ahead' it is, then. Track it is too, a heading it is not. Pretty conclusive.
'Straight ahead' is defined in MATS Part 1, which is, of course, intended for reference by ATCOs.
For aircrew, 'Straight Ahead' is similarly defined in CAP413.
Neither 'Runway Heading' nor 'Runway Track' appear in CAP413.
Take back what I wrote, I shall remonstrate with said Farnborough operative.
'Straight Ahead' it is, then. Track it is too, a heading it is not. Pretty conclusive.
See that's strange because I'd always have expected the aircrew to maintain RW track and take the wind into account to maintain that....hmmmm I suspect some additional paperwork coming around the corner.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talkdownman, there exists a world outside UK and MATS/CAP.
Icao says:
1. If a heading is to be maintained:
"continue runway heading"
2. If a track is to be maintained:
"climb straight ahead" or
"track extended centre line"
Icao says:
1. If a heading is to be maintained:
"continue runway heading"
2. If a track is to be maintained:
"climb straight ahead" or
"track extended centre line"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learned very early in my career as a Tower controller that the safest bet is to give them a heading to fly: "Cleared for take-off, fly heading 280". I knew what would happen; pilot knew what to do... it's all too easy.
SOP in the RAF was the phrase 'climb on runway track', but this may have changed in March with the RAF's adoption of CAP 413; anyway it featured in MACF procedures on their approach plates.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last time this came up was, http://www.pprune.org/questions/2943...y-heading.html
Previously,
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/273...runway+heading
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/254...runway+heading
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/253...runway+heading
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/23258...runway+heading
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/162...runway+heading
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/11420...runway+heading
Previously,
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/273...runway+heading
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/254...runway+heading
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/253...runway+heading
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/23258...runway+heading
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/162...runway+heading
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/11420...runway+heading