I have been put on a heading by Man tower departing 24L and a go around on 24R has occured.

I would disagree with that. Commanders and FO are responsible at all times for terrain clearance. When under a heading the ATCO shares that responsibility. The commander is never ever not responsible for thier aircrafts safety. Thats why we have a MSA call when passing it and brief the radar approach plate / local procedural let down.

Discussions do occur though when for example you get told to decend you below MSA outside the plate zone using there local radar chart and the key hole thing. Which i had never heard about in training. My tendency is to stay above MSA in unknown territory until we are on the plates and can be 100% sure that we were going to miss the granite. In VMC of course its not an issue.

Must admit if I get asked to report my heading I would tend to assume it was a vector. And stick to it. And if nothing heard with a couple of miles to run to the waypoint would get clarification as Man flex has stated. And when cleared presume that the controller had forgotten about us while dealing with the other traffic, which is no problem at all.

The only worry point for me would be if you got told direct and report to the end of the star (with a condition not to procced without ATC clearance on the plate) my tendency would be to take up the hold is this right?

MJ

Bookworm,

Intersting, and as you say it seems there is room for ambiguity. It puzzles me that some crews believe being told to 'report your heading' is equivalent to being told to fly/continue/maintain your heading'. Do those crews believe the same if they were asked to 'report your level'?

Bookworm

UK controllers should never tell you to maintain a heading, that's reserved for level instructions. We might tell you to continue on a heading however :ok:

Personally I never ask an aircraft what his heading is before adjusting it, with one exception. It's 4 RT calls when 2 will suffice. Why double your workload in busy airspace ?? I can see from radar the track of the aircraft, I know how many degrees I want that to change the track by and can factor in the approximate drift, and I can ask the pilot to tell me the new heading if I really need to know it. If it's to find the 'heading du jour' then again I will tell the pilot to continue on the heading and report it. Again, 2 RT calls instead of 4. The only exception I would make would be when using the turn method to identify a non squawking aircraft since I need to know his heading to correlate it with the radar return I think is the aircraft in question before issuing the ident turn.

There is a slight disconnect here between the MATS Part 1 (ATC) and the CAP413 (Pilots/ATC). The MATS permits this phrase as a means of vectoring aircraft, therefore in ATC minds it is a 'continue' heading mode. It doesn't seem to appear in the CAP413 in this format, so I can see where the confusion arises.

Yes :ok:

Non standard phraseolgy (by mixing two differing types of instrucion) which will always cause ambiuguity and confusion. If I want someone to route direct somewhere but then need them on a heading for separation because I don't have the requisite number of miles to allow me to simply monitor the separation (differs depending on the RNP status of the airspace, see previous lengthy threads :ok: ), then I would say 'Route direct XYZ, when established on track continue on your heading, report heading when steady'. It doesn't appear in the list of standard phrases but hopefully is clear enough.

Gonzo

I think this comes from the CAP413. The paragraph header for vectoring states '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.'

One of the standard phraseology 'instructions' given is then 'Fastair 345 report heading'. Reading that as a pilot I would think that it infers I must continue on that heading so the controller can establish separation. As an ATCO, I wouldn't expect them to, but clearly it is ambiguous.

I think I'll serve this one to an SRG inspector and see if we can have it sorted once and for all

:}

It's a fair cop, guv... ;)

Yes. Case 6 was almost exactly what Man Flex started the thread with.

.

One of the things that troubles me slightly is that there is no document that describes in sufficient detail how instructions and clearances should be interpreted. Hence the other favourite thread about level instructions when on a SID.... There's very limited guidance in PANS-ATM and PANS-OPS on any of these issues. I'd like to see that addressed, so that, once sorted this can be carved in a tablet of stone rather than being "PPrune received wisdom".

So:

7 "Report heading"
Still probably own navigation because it's in the "Identification" section in MATS Pt 1?

8 "Continue present heading and report that heading."
Maintain a heading mode because it's in the "Vectoring" section in MATS Pt 1.

Trouble is, pilots don't read MATS Pt1... :(

Oh one more tricky set...

9)
"Fastair 345 turn left heading 320"
"Left heading 320, Fastair 345"
"Fastair 345 contact Wrayton Control 123.45 with the heading"
"Wrayton Control 123.45 Fastair 345"
<flip>
"Wrayton Control Fastair 345 Good Morning heading 320"
"Fastair 345 roger"

10)
"Fastair 345 resume own navigation to XYZ"
"Own navigation to XYZ, Fastair 345"
"Fastair 345 contact Wrayton Control 123.45 with the heading"
"Wrayton Control 123.45 Fastair 345"
<flip>
"Wrayton Control Fastair 345 Good Morning heading 320"
"Fastair 345 roger"


11)
"Fastair 345 resume own navigation to XYZ"
"Own navigation to XYZ, Fastair 345"
"Fastair 345 contact Wrayton Control 123.45 "
"Wrayton Control 123.45 Fastair 345"
<flip>
"Wrayton Control Fastair 345 Good Morning heading 320"
"Fastair 345 roger"

9 is normal. I'm obviously in maintain-heading-mode

10 is probably a controller error but I can imagine such a mix-up^H^H^H^H^H^H^H so it would never happen :ok: . Which mode does the pilot think he is in? Which mode does the second controller think he is in?

11 is a pilot trying to be "helpful". Which mode does the second controller think he is in?

So the problem is, on change of frequency, does "heading 320" from the pilot mean to the controller that he will continue that heading?

(Personally, I think "radar heading" is useful in exactly that context.)

Just to muddy the water even more....
As a procedural controller I often ask an aircraft that I am transferring to my SRA controller to "Contact XXX Radar with your heading". Not technically perfect RT but it will have to do until something else equally safe, short and concise is promulgated. This at least gives the SRA chappy one less call to make prior to turning the aircraft for ident in our primary environment.
Quite often I may ask an aircraft to leave XXX beacon on a heading of e.g. 100 to position it in an area suitable for ident by the radar controller, who may be otherwise temporarily engaged doing the previous SRA.
I have even used headings to ensure aircraft in the same area are divirging if one has suddenly gone IMC and I am trying to get some separation between them until standard separation can be applied.
There are probably loads more instances in which procedural controllers use heading instructions, but these are just a few that spring to mind.

Thanks guys for all your constructive replies...

As expected the general concensus is that this clearance/wording is ambiguous and clarification from the crew is required.

I can confirm that this was unlikely to have been the "heading de jour". There was a significant wind aloft and the heading query may well have been related; I remember commenting on this at the time. I was also aware of another aircraft in close proximity and he could well have been inbound to an adjacent airfield.

One other possiblity springs to mind...

This sector is used a lot for training and it might be possible that when the "new" controller asked us to "report heading established" he actually meant "radar heading".

Interestingly, this caused quite a discussion on the flight deck both during the event and afterwards... but that's another story.

HD.. thanks for confusing the issue... having knocked my statement, why not give an answer to the original question?

I never meant to infer that an ATCO needs a radar to be able to allocate a heading... and are you telling me that the Director at LHR does the job without a radar in front of him/her?... I doubt it.

So although the heading they give may be "off the top of the head" it surely is based on interpretation of the prevailing radar picture and done in the knowledge that the situation can be monitored and recovered. The allocation of headings without any radar monitoring is, IMHO, a last ditch measure, and does not come under the heading of Air Traffic CONTROL... (maybe it was done more in the past?)

Can't disagree mad_jock, the pilot is always ultimately responsible for not banging into things. I guess I was talking as a controller when, technically, the only time I'm supposed to consider terrain safety is when vectoring an aircraft.

Man Flex... out of curiousity, what difference does heading or radar heading make to you as a pilot?

I would expect any pilot with a modicum of common sense, who has been told to turn left/right x degrees to maintain that heading.

How could anyone mistake that instruction for being on their own nav??

When would I use it? If i see two aircraft in conflict and want to do a climb through or whatever, I use my skills (ok, and vector lines) to project tracks, then 'tweak' the observed track on the subject aircraft. I could not give a monkeys what the resultant heading is, as long as it takes the aircraft in the direction I want it.

This is why the turn left/right x degrees usually involves a small(ish) change. If I did not know the heading but wanted to turn the aircraft a long way, for whatever reason, I would grab a decent handful then say something like 'turn left heading 345', if it is glaringly obvious that not matter what the wind is, the aircraft is nowhere near that heading at the time.

I do not have time to say to every aircraft either "XYZ report your heading" ,await reply, "XYZ roger, turn right heading" or "XYZ turn right 20 degrees continue as a radar heading and report it"!!!


I am talking mainly from a CAS perspective, where instructions are mandatory, but even outcas, if talking to a professional pilot, I would expect the same thoughts.

Maybe not ideal phraseology, but common sense if you take a second to think about it.

:O

What about the case where you are cleared direct to the end of the star and "report heading".

Is it a take up the hold or continue on heading? When you get there. Common sense say take up the hold but.....


Maybe they should start using "Radar heading" it works

MJ

I am struggling to imagine why any controller would say such a thing. If any of my past students had said that, or similar, they would receive the AIP around the earhole at a considerable rate of knots.

....ah , one of the old school, Bern! Good to keep those young'uns looking for incoming while they're training!:ok:

The old school was a good school. If it ain't broke..............

Until this recent event I always assumed that "report your heading" was to be taken literally just like "report your speed/Mach number".

This clearance was a little unusual and I can see why there may have been some confusion but I do not have the spare capacity to second guess for what reason the controller would want to know my heading to XXX.

If the guy then wants me to maintain that heading I would expect such phrases as "maintain this heading" or "make that a radar heading". I would then revert from "own navigation" to heading mode.

I hasten to add that I believe CAP 413 to be fairly clear on this subject and at the time I was surprised that my colleague could have interpreted it any other way.

Man Flex

you are totally correct. "report your heading" has no implications meaning you must stay on it... its a fairly wishy washy phrase, but I might use it if I want to guage what I think is a good track for future A/C that I MAY wish to put on similar tracks; on headings, wether that be traffic reasons or positioning for next sector.

If I wanted you to report and stay on a heading I personally would use "continue present headin and report it"

man lfex... further to what ukatco-535 says about "request heading"... another time I'd use it is when you've requested vectors, I see you're pointing in the right direction but I need to know what you're steering to judge future turns. I might follow this up with a request to "maintain", and only when you hear this or receive a turn are you actually on a radar heading.

Excuse please, if I've missed it above, but has anyone mentioned the obvious..... we send you direct, then make it a heading... because it suits us, and hopefully you too !

To set up one a/c on its desired track, but locked on that track by making it a 'radar heading', whilst you vector a second one around it (same or opposite direction), means that at least one party is pointing in the right direction when the vectoring ceases to be necessary.

I've always thought that made good sense, and helps the crew, but it will be influenced by airspace layout, climb/descent profiles, etc, so is not always appropriate.

Just my own thoughts as I strive to be helpful.
:ok:

as far as I am concerned headings are only used in a radar or ADSB environment, and never in a procedural situation. In a procedural environment an acft may fly a "heading" if it is part of initial SID but eventually it will be back to the usual own navigation using aids or GPS or other