Radar vectoring questoin
 

Hi,

I wonder if someone can explain the below:

When I was flying through the Luton zone in the UK, I heard these instructions (where G-CG was a PA-28):

"Speedbird 211, fly heading 250"
"Fly heading 250, Speedbird 211"

"Delta 214, fly heading 240"
"Fly heading 240, Delta 214"

"G-CG, for you.. err.. track east, maybe somewhere between.. err... heading 080 and 090 should work"
"I will fly heading 085, G-CG"

Is it generally harder to vector a PA-28 compared to a jet?

The PA28 was probably flying relatively low, and not a threat to other aircraft. The controller probably just wanted the aircraft out of the zone and hence just gave them general vectors out to the east whereas the jets would have been being vectored for an arrival or avoidance.

Plus the fact the PA28, on a DI would have only been able to maintain a rough heading, unlike the two jets using state of the art GPS and IRS's.

HPbleed I think you may not have hit the nail on the head! It is most likely that the PA28 was VFR and (if required) controllers will only issue a rough direction to track to such aircraft. If the controller was to give a radar heading to the PA28 then he would have to attach a long winded phrase at the end of the instruction regarding the pilot informing him if the vector would prevent the pilot from maintaining VMC etc. It almost certainly was not because of the equipment fitted to the PA28.

Regards, ADIS

HPbleed
I think you underestimate the poor PA28 pilot. Even a PPL would be required to demonstrate the ability to fly a heading on a compass (with all it's errors), within 5 or so degrees.
Not knowing the requirements in the airspace you mention, but going on my experience from a land far far away, one of the following may have been the case:

• Tower Controllers weren't allowed to issue radar headings - they could only issuing tracking instructions (track east or track to a point)
• Radar Controllers weren't allowed to issue radar headings when aircraft were outside controlled airspace

ADIS5000 maybe right as well - all we had to do was add "VFR" on the end of the clearance.

In the US we have the short phrase "Maintain VFR" which is issued once after passing the message. After this reminder, it is understood that the VFR pilot must advise if a vector will take it into cloud.

This was radar approach control inside Delta airspace.

Yes. The slower the aircraft, the greater the drift angle between heading and track. If the wind is unpredictable or variable, the track associated with a particular heading is much more predictable at higher airspeed.

Hello bookworm :)

Are you, or have you ever been, a radar controller?

radar vectors for VFR traffic
 

As stated by others, one should realize the VFR pilot could run into IMC conditions, so vectors/radar headings should be given cautiously, that is to say sometimes it would be hard for the controller to distinguish or anticipate IMC conditions for a VFR pilot.
Mostly i would prefer to use the following phrase in advance:
"are you able to accept radar headings/vector" indicating (hopefully) the ability of the pilot concerned to interpret this message the way it is intended to, viz. give the controller a call when unable to maintain VMC on the given heading/vector.

Ofcourse it goes without saying that modern day VFR pilots should be able to hold a heading as good as any other pilot............yeah right...:cool:

Lots of weirdies here.. BAW211 and Delta 214 I can find no information on. However, it is very doubtful that, given the R/T quoted, that they would be flying in the Luton Zone; more like in the London TMA. The TMA is Class A airspace so no VFR flights are permitted. The PA-28 must therefore have been IFR under radar control. I very much doubt that the controller wanted the PA28 "out of the zone". If the PA28 had a problem or was unsure of its position it is again most unlikely that a TMA controller would be talking to it..

Few people on here not too familiar, eh Talkdownman???

Hello HD! So it would seem from some of the postings... ;)

Perhaps the PA28 was below the minimum level for vectoring aircraft at, and even though the controller could see the aircraft, was not able to vector, just suggest a track to be flown.

Nope. I'm a slow-aircraft pilot. I'm just going by the number of times radar controllers have to take a second bite of the cherry! If it's easy, why would they get it wrong so often? ;)

So not one of your usual reliable, informed, scientific and definitive reponses on this occasion, then.
Hmmm......

<<I'm just going by the number of times radar controllers have to take a second bite of the cherry! If it's easy, why would they get it wrong so often?>>
??

I never found it any more difficult to vector clockwork mice than 747s... What do we get "wrong so often"?

Soaringhigh650,

As stated by ADIS5000, chances are the 28 was VFR.

C

Touché, HD! :)

zkjaws:
Tower controllers can issue headings when instructed to do so by radar, but in this case the aircraft was clearly already talking to radar.
In the UK, radar controllers can and DO issue headings outside controlled airspace ie Class G airspace - there are many airports with APS and iaps outside controlled airspace in the UK.

Doesn't that make it Class E controlled airspace by definition? or not?

soaringhigh650. The callsigns you mentioned in your original posting do not appear to exist. I can find neither on the respective airlines web sites. They sounded to me like flights from a major UK airport but certainly not Luton. This led me to believe that they were in London TMA Class A airspace, where VFR Cherokees would not be permitted.

If you could provide more information, maybe someone on here could help?

PS. Over here it is illegal to publish anything you hear on the R/T. Maybe that's why the callsigns were changed?

HD - the callsigns probably do not exist as I don't remember what exactly they were.

I was just paraphrasing the fact that there was hesitation when giving a vector to a PA-28 (as compared to an airline jet).

Maybe it was Stanstead and not Luton.