When is a heading...
 

A question for approach and area controllers...

When is a heading a "Radar Heading"?

What phraseology would one use and in what circumstances would one be asked to "report your heading"?

Uh oh...................................

Man Flex, this topic comes up once every few months.

Perhaps a search through some old threads would bring up some answers. :ok:

At the risk of taking the bait... what other sort of heading do you think there is?... The Grab-a-handful heading, or maybe the "I'll-Make-it-up-as-I-go heading?

ATC is done procedurally or with radar (OK with a bit of overlap)... but the idea that someone could allocate a heading when controlling without using radar information is, sorry, laughable?

Been done to death before - try search facility:ok:

......but I still like, "Under radar control, fly heading XXX" No ambiguity there!!

Ok chaps. Have done a "search" and having spent a good half hour trying to find the answer to my question I feel the need to elaborate...

Aircraft was given instruction "direct to XXX then YYY, report your heading when established". Heading was read back. Nothing further was communicated by ATC. There was then some confusion amongst the crew as to whether they were on a "radar heading". Approaching XXX, the crew queried this and were cleared direct YYY.

The answer to the confusion may (with hindsight) be obvious but the fact that there was confusion on the flight deck prompted the original question.

Not being a radar bod, it seems to me that the ATCO was merely trying to gauge the wind at altitude? If you weren't told to 'continue present heading' or 'fly heading' then you were still on own nav.

but the idea that someone could allocate a heading when controlling without using radar information is, sorry, laughable?

You are too young then to remember the QGH or using VDF to separate departures.

No Radar just a pudding bowl with a line jumping round.

Must be time to have a Museum of ATC where they can take the young guys! :ok:

Regards,

DFC

<<but the idea that someone could allocate a heading when controlling without using radar information is, sorry, laughable?>>

Not laughable at all and I've done it many times to separate a go-around from a departure on a parallel runway. No radar involved, just straightforward Air Traffic Control to prevent a nasty...

OK - quick poll: if you ATCOs tell an aircraft to turn left/right by a certain number of degrees, do you expect a readback of the new heading without asking for it?

how about if bloggs reads back 'new' heading, 'helpfully' rounded to nearest 5 degrees?

And why the difference in styles between the "What's your heading? OK turn new heading xxx degrees" and "turn left 15 degrees and report the heading"

the latter seems to be better from an RT loading PoV, you get the heading change you want AND we do the maths for you.

So any particular reason why one or the other? Just personal preference or is there more to it?

Gary Lager

Generally, when you (I mean, we) ask for a heading, prior vectoring, that may mean couple of things. First, when making opposite/same direction - parallel track you need to know heading in order to do it (second A/C may get “Fly heading XXX”), when you need to know the drift angle in order to vector properly, or when you want to be precise.

I cannot answer to that question because according to the rules in Serbia, we are NOT allowed to vector without prior asking for the heading, apart of track adjustment, non gyro radar vectoring and using the phrase “Fly heading XXX”.
Anyway, using “turn left/right by XX degrees” is, from my point of view, more guessing or assuming than vectoring. No need for that, unless, you ran out of time and/or options.

I\'ve made a mistake.
We are not allowed to vector without prior asking for the heading, apart of track adjustment, non gyro radar vectoring and avoiding actions. Sorry about that.

Only headings I give are based on radar. So what headings were you using old man?

<<Only headings I give are based on radar. So what headings were you using old man?>>

Headings out of my head - I don't need a radar to determine which direction I want an aircraft to fly in an urgent situation. Example.. Northbound departure lifts off runway 27L as one goes-around on 27R. I instruct the departure to fly a heading to prevent it from turning towards the go-around and then get some vertical separation organised. That's NOT a "radar heading" - that's simply an instruction to a pilot to steer his aeroplane in a particular direction to prevent an incident. I used that technique all my working life - including at two units where there was no radar equipment! Also, as mentioned earlier, I used QGH procedures extensively at one unit where there was no radar and issued headings to aircraft all day long!!

Maybe controllers nowadays are not allowed to use initiative?

HD, we were still doing that yesterday......... :ok:

<<HD, we were still doing that yesterday......... >>

Precisely.. and I sincerely trust that nobody working there needs to look at a radar screen to work out headings!!

With the greatest of respect to Gonzo and HD I think that putting a go around on a heading without the use of radar (whether a 'proper' radar or a modern Aerodrome Traffic Monitor) may be a Heathrow specific thing. Having worked at a good many UK airports it's not something that I have ever been taught to do and there's certainly never been anything in the local ATC instructions that let me do it.

For what it's worth, my personal view is that putting an aircraft on a heading without radar is not a good idea. Firstly, we regularly see arguments on Pprune about whether the word radar is redundant in ATC instructions so therea are obviously a fair number of people who assume that any heading instruction issued by ATC is based on the use of radar. Secondly, another thread that crops up here is who's responsible for assuring terrain clearance and the general answer is that it's the commander of the aircraft except when the aircraft is on a ATC instructed heading.

This second topic is a bit of a grey areas in some respects - in situations like that Man Flex describes at the top of this thread where the aircraft is under radar control but is cleared or instructed to go direct somewhere it's debatable whether it's on a heading in the traditional ATC sense.

Man Flex...

You may well have been the first aircraft of the morning...the controller wants to know the "heading de Jour".

Also may have had another aircraft that he was going to parallel?

Loads of reasons.

If he wanted to know the "drift" surely it would have been easier to just ask the spot wind?


Ps, we used to use diversion radials off VOR's and headings off NDB back in the dark old days of Oz procedural control, so DP it did used to happen!!:p

Spitoon - the other places I have issued headings to aircraft without radar were a UK airport northwest of London, where I worked in 1971 and at an international airport in Africa where I worked in the 60s. How else does one get a pilot to fly in the direction one wants? At the UK place at weekends I often experienced PPLs on solo x-country flights and various other aircraft needing help with navigation. I have stood in the tower there and talked someone round the circuit by giving him headings to fly! I've also talked a pilot towards the airfield by using binoculars and telling him headings to fly. What else can one do? Say "turn left a bit"? There are many, many situations not covered by "The Book" where controllers use their initiative to provide a service. I'm sure the old MATS Pt 1 included a note to that effect but maybe nowadays controllers are prevented from doing so, which is sad.

Gonzo

<<If you weren't told to 'continue present heading' or 'fly heading' then you were still on own nav.>>

Yes......unless you're talking to a French controller.


Check out the second part of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=187789

I think there's a key point in here about some phraseology leading to ambiguity. In effect there are two lateral modes for an aircraft under an ATC service: maintain a heading mode, or own navigation, in which the aircraft is free to make heading changes to maintain track. The aircraft needs to know what mode is agreed.

Consider some of the following:

1 "Turn left 30 degrees and maintain that heading"
Clearly maintain a heading mode

2 "Turn left 30 degrees and make that a radar heading"
OK, we don't like the phraseology, but still clearly maintain a heading mode

3 "Turn left 30 degrees and report your heading"
Probably still maintain a heading mode, but less obvious, I think.

4 "Own navigation direct XYZ"
Clearly own navigation mode.

5 "Route direct XYZ"
Still probably own navigation, yes?

6 "Route direct XYZ and report your heading"
Er. Well by analogy with 3 we're in maintain a heading mode. By analogy with 5 we're in own navigation mode.

So in case 6, if I find myself diverging from direct track on that heading, do I turn to maintain the direct track or do I maintain the heading I read to you?