radar heading
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Asgard
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don`t think I can remember encountering a situation where my use of the phrase "Radar heading " has been misunderstood. If it ain`t broke......
Though perhaps we might consider a return to the phraseology of an earler age.
"Shuttle six golf* vector zero two zero, angels twenty,buster" has a certain ring to it.
(perhaps that should be "George")
Though perhaps we might consider a return to the phraseology of an earler age.
"Shuttle six golf* vector zero two zero, angels twenty,buster" has a certain ring to it.
(perhaps that should be "George")
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens
From CAP 413...
Chapter 1 Glossary
1 Definitions
Radar Vectoring Provision of navigational guidance to aircraft in the form of specific headings, based on the use of radar.
Chapter 8 General Radar Phraseology
5 Radar Vectoring
5.1 Aircraft may be given specific vectors to fly in order to establish separation. Pilots may be informed of the reasons for radar vectoring.
5.2 It may be necessary for a controller to know the heading of an aircraft as separation can often be established by instructing an aircraft to continue on its existing heading.
5.3 A controller may not know the aircraft’s heading but does require the aircraft to fly a particular heading.
5.4 When vectoring is complete, pilots will be instructed to resume their own navigation, given position information and appropriate instructions as necessary.
I have omitted the examples....
Hope this helps
Regards,
Shuttlebus
If RADAR HEADING is such a useful term and is in regular use by ATCOs, then why the h*ll doesn't someone do something about it and get it into CAP413 so that instructors can teach it.
Chapter 1 Glossary
1 Definitions
Radar Vectoring Provision of navigational guidance to aircraft in the form of specific headings, based on the use of radar.
Chapter 8 General Radar Phraseology
5 Radar Vectoring
5.1 Aircraft may be given specific vectors to fly in order to establish separation. Pilots may be informed of the reasons for radar vectoring.
5.2 It may be necessary for a controller to know the heading of an aircraft as separation can often be established by instructing an aircraft to continue on its existing heading.
5.3 A controller may not know the aircraft’s heading but does require the aircraft to fly a particular heading.
5.4 When vectoring is complete, pilots will be instructed to resume their own navigation, given position information and appropriate instructions as necessary.
I have omitted the examples....
Hope this helps
Regards,
Shuttlebus
So I roll up on your frequency tracking 20 degrees left of the XYZ waypoint you want to direct me through, and pitch in with "London G-ABCD FLxxx heading 160". You acknowledge briefly, and 30 seconds later I turn right 20 degrees. "G-ABCD I thought you were on a heading!?" you protest. "No G-ABCD was instructed direct XYZ -- just took a minute to ident it"
Whether or not you use the word "radar" as the discriminator, doesn't it make sense to distinguish between "the heading I have been assigned" and "the heading I happen to be on" in the phraseology?
Whether or not you use the word "radar" as the discriminator, doesn't it make sense to distinguish between "the heading I have been assigned" and "the heading I happen to be on" in the phraseology?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bookworm,
In your example if you checked in with me and reported your heading, then I would assume that you were being given to me by the previous controller on that heading for a reason, I would not expect you to be on your own navigation. In your particular example I would expect you to state "turning direct XYZ". Stating your heading just confuses matters.
In your example if you checked in with me and reported your heading, then I would assume that you were being given to me by the previous controller on that heading for a reason, I would not expect you to be on your own navigation. In your particular example I would expect you to state "turning direct XYZ". Stating your heading just confuses matters.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EIDW
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mushroom_2, the a/c I fly (733 and 737) don't have any facility to fly a track. If ATC asked me to 'maintain my track' I'd have to continuously use the autopilot Heading mode to keep the trackline where it was.
This is probably just about as safe as flying on magnetic headings for separation, because one moment of distraction and we've drifted off our track into someone else....
This is probably just about as safe as flying on magnetic headings for separation, because one moment of distraction and we've drifted off our track into someone else....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe the discussion here!
Ferris is 100% right, and shuttlebus's extract from CAP413 also supports it. A heading is assigned by a controller to maintain horizontal separation, or to guide an aircraft to a particular point (as in approach sequencing to an ILS).
There is no requirement to report your heading to ATC on first call, unless you have been told to do so by the transferring unit, or until you are asked. When a controller puts an aircraft on a heading it should remain on that heading until another heading, or "resume navigation" instruction is given. If an aircraft is transferred to another frequency whilst still on a heading, it should report that heading on the new frequency.
The "radar heading" as discussed here is nothing other than a heading assigned by a radar controller for the above described purposes, and the word "radar" is superfluous and, obviously, confusing.
Perhaps my fellow UK persons should remember that there are a a lot of other places than just the UK, and that "standard phraseology" is there for a reason. Aeroplanes fly in many parts of the world, and the pilots should use, and expect to hear standard R/T. That's why we have that organistaion called ICAO!
Ferris is 100% right, and shuttlebus's extract from CAP413 also supports it. A heading is assigned by a controller to maintain horizontal separation, or to guide an aircraft to a particular point (as in approach sequencing to an ILS).
There is no requirement to report your heading to ATC on first call, unless you have been told to do so by the transferring unit, or until you are asked. When a controller puts an aircraft on a heading it should remain on that heading until another heading, or "resume navigation" instruction is given. If an aircraft is transferred to another frequency whilst still on a heading, it should report that heading on the new frequency.
The "radar heading" as discussed here is nothing other than a heading assigned by a radar controller for the above described purposes, and the word "radar" is superfluous and, obviously, confusing.
Perhaps my fellow UK persons should remember that there are a a lot of other places than just the UK, and that "standard phraseology" is there for a reason. Aeroplanes fly in many parts of the world, and the pilots should use, and expect to hear standard R/T. That's why we have that organistaion called ICAO!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO the dreaded word [sort of]
I was following this with some interest ,having used "radar heading" for many trouble free years, until someone mentioned ICAO and standardisation. Well it all depends what and where you are. Rules at Heathrow for example are so different from the rules applied at Regional [hate that disgusting and derogatory term] airports that you would be forgiven for thinking you were in a foreign country. I've often suspected that the CAA consider that a race of super pilots exist and that they are the ones who fly in and out of the bigga-mega-airports and so as not to overburden them with super waffle trivial verbal overexcess it is all missed out.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, genius, I was trying to explain the reasoning of the people who use it. If you actually follow the thread, I have been arguing against the use of the phrase 'radar heading'.
I realise English is a second language for you, but if you need clarifications in future, why not ask first instead of making a public fool of yourself.
By a danke, eh brew
I realise English is a second language for you, but if you need clarifications in future, why not ask first instead of making a public fool of yourself.
By a danke, eh brew
It is quite pointless - and, as seen above, confusing - for a controller to ever use the expression "radar heading" to a pilot.
If the pilot is instructed to "fly heading 230" or "turn left, heading 230", what more is needed? That is perfectly clear and unambiguous, and if is controlled airspace, is an instruction with which the pilot must comply (other than to avoid immediate danger).
If outside CAS but under RAS, the pilot has already established a verbal contract, his part of the deal being that he will comply with "instructions" (which are actually advisory) until such time as he opts out of the agreement.
If the pilot is instructed to "fly heading 230" or "turn left, heading 230", what more is needed? That is perfectly clear and unambiguous, and if is controlled airspace, is an instruction with which the pilot must comply (other than to avoid immediate danger).
If outside CAS but under RAS, the pilot has already established a verbal contract, his part of the deal being that he will comply with "instructions" (which are actually advisory) until such time as he opts out of the agreement.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar Heading
Here's an explanation as good as any. Area control used to be done by a procedural [ or "D" ] controller using a strip based system at an Area unit. He was assisted in his task by a radar controller, often at a remote location [ for instance where the radar was ] but sharing a common frequency. A scenario might be that the "D" instructed an aircraft to climb or descend where procedural separation existed; however when there was a requirement for the radar controller to implement the task then the radar controller might say "Beeline GAPEB radar, heading 270 degrees". Of course the pilot cannot see the comma and over the years it just became "radar heading 270" and was incorporated into air traffic lore as normal practice. How many times have you heard the phrase "Roger D" ? ..........One of the reasons that there appears to be a non standard application of some items of R/T phraseology could be age related, I was taught a certain set of phrases at the ATC college back in the early seventies and, in the case of my employer, you never go back for any kind of modernisation or upgrade; besides which I can honestly say that if it works why change it? If you don't understand just ask, we are here to help!
"One of the reasons that there appears to be a non standard application of some items of R/T phraseology could be age related, I was taught a certain set of phrases at the ATC college back in the early seventies and, in the case of my employer, you never go back for any kind of modernisation or upgrade; besides which I can honestly say that if it works why change it?"
You poor old chap.
I am sure that "radar heading" was never taught at rating level as an item of RTF phraseology. As far as modernisation is concerned, that is the very function of document amendments and AICs. It would be useful if more people read them and actioned them - the subject matter is not exactly rocket science!
You poor old chap.
I am sure that "radar heading" was never taught at rating level as an item of RTF phraseology. As far as modernisation is concerned, that is the very function of document amendments and AICs. It would be useful if more people read them and actioned them - the subject matter is not exactly rocket science!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modernisation?
Oh dear! Missed the point, or the comma to be more precise. The callsign of the radar controller was "xxxxRADAR", and the same was true of Approach as well as Area. That's where RADAR HEADING came from. Anyway thanks for the really useful tip on document amendments, unfortunately we don't get any at Swanwick and I have an awful job trying to remember the 467 amendments issued in the last year and a bit. By the way, I am only a "scope jockey" and I have always wanted to know why the UK has to have so many differences from ICAO. All eyes will wait with anticipation for your career-enhancing and politically correct reply.
166k
I understood your explanation perfectly, I just do not think that it sounds very plausible. As you said originally, "an explanation as good as any", though you later implied that it was THE explanation. Either way, it illustrates an appalling laxity if you think that "heading 230" constitutes an instruction.
If you do not get any document amendments at LACC, two points. Why are you not making a fuss with the management - or SRG - if you do not have amendments drawn to your attention, but how is it that you still complain about the number that you have to remember?
Back to the point. As has been said previously, there is no definition of the term "radar heading" and it does not feature in any standard phraseology. Hardly surprising then that some pilots are confused by it - it should not be used.
Neither does it feature in ICAO definitions or phraseology. I do not quite understand your question about UK differences. The UK, as well as many other states, files differences from ICAO terminology, standards and recommended practices because it believes that it has good reason. Admittedly, these can sometimes create as many problems as they solve, but would you argue with the logic of using "holding point" instead of "holding position" or "flight level one hundred" etc instead of "flight level one zero zero" etc - particularly, of course, if some clown is going to throw in "heading one one zero" without "degrees" or a specific instruction in the same transmission.
Do not quite understand your closing shot - what exactly is PC about everyone trying for a bit of accuracy and common understanding in the interest of safety? That's why the young pilot chappie started this thread.
I understood your explanation perfectly, I just do not think that it sounds very plausible. As you said originally, "an explanation as good as any", though you later implied that it was THE explanation. Either way, it illustrates an appalling laxity if you think that "heading 230" constitutes an instruction.
If you do not get any document amendments at LACC, two points. Why are you not making a fuss with the management - or SRG - if you do not have amendments drawn to your attention, but how is it that you still complain about the number that you have to remember?
Back to the point. As has been said previously, there is no definition of the term "radar heading" and it does not feature in any standard phraseology. Hardly surprising then that some pilots are confused by it - it should not be used.
Neither does it feature in ICAO definitions or phraseology. I do not quite understand your question about UK differences. The UK, as well as many other states, files differences from ICAO terminology, standards and recommended practices because it believes that it has good reason. Admittedly, these can sometimes create as many problems as they solve, but would you argue with the logic of using "holding point" instead of "holding position" or "flight level one hundred" etc instead of "flight level one zero zero" etc - particularly, of course, if some clown is going to throw in "heading one one zero" without "degrees" or a specific instruction in the same transmission.
Do not quite understand your closing shot - what exactly is PC about everyone trying for a bit of accuracy and common understanding in the interest of safety? That's why the young pilot chappie started this thread.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 sheds:
QUOTE
Back to the point. As has been said previously, there is no definition of the term "radar heading" and it does not feature in any standard phraseology. Hardly surprising then that some pilots are confused by it - it should not be used.
UNQUOTE
Sorry, but you are incorrect.
I have finally managed to check one of the (few) paper copies of MATS Part 1 at LACC and I came across the following:
Appendix E (Attach), Amendment 56 dated 31/1/03
Standard phrases:
Transfer on a heading : Report radar heading to (ATCU callsign) (frequency)
Seems to be fairly clear to me.
QUOTE
Back to the point. As has been said previously, there is no definition of the term "radar heading" and it does not feature in any standard phraseology. Hardly surprising then that some pilots are confused by it - it should not be used.
UNQUOTE
Sorry, but you are incorrect.
I have finally managed to check one of the (few) paper copies of MATS Part 1 at LACC and I came across the following:
Appendix E (Attach), Amendment 56 dated 31/1/03
Standard phrases:
Transfer on a heading : Report radar heading to (ATCU callsign) (frequency)
Seems to be fairly clear to me.
Last edited by eyeinthesky; 30th Apr 2003 at 20:26.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: EDUU
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the term "Radar heading" commonly used by controllers?? We only know it from pilots to indicate they have been assigned a heading and not yet been released to resume own navigation. Controllers never use this phrase.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar Heading
I think it's useful to have a few reflections about what we say and why. I take on board all contributions as they all have something going for them. After some thought and a little homework it seems to me that basic publications can provide a skeleton set of phrases, but using wake vortex as an example where the UK adopt of different set of separation protocols as determined by local [UK] evidence, so different ATC units use different phraseology that evidence has shown to be more useful in practice. One example is the stomach-churning expect levels:"Descend when ready Flight Level 270 expect Flight Level 140 40 miles before Ockham". Whoever thought that one up is not my friend; I'll never understand why we have to say it because it's all written down on the STAR OCK 1A/1F chart , not only that but we are not allowed to give the expect level point the way it is written on the STAR chart. In conclusion it would seem that as the complexity of the MATS part 2 grows it becomes further and further removed from any kind of standardisation.........and as far as RT goes......that is a bad thing!