radar heading
 

Can someone tell me if there is something special about this. I've heard pilots saying something along the following lines

London, UK2MD, FL 50 for 70, Radar heading 260.

What is the radar heading part. I've not come across this in any of the aptl stuff. Is it a track heading rather than a compass heading?

Thanks

Wobblyprop

True track (that or I've been doing it wrong for years and nobody noticed).

G

Wow, I never thought I'd ever be in a position to contradict Genghis, however I am about to.

In the example that you mention, what you're hearing is the first call on a frequency by an aircraft. It is accepted practice under IFR on handover to a new frequency to make the first call with the current level and details of the last clearance. It is even possible that the ATC unit handing over asked them to do this:

"UK2MD report radar heading to London Control on xxx.xx"

it simply means that the aircraft was under radar vectors before handover, and so should report the last vector to the next frequency. Note that on very busy frequencies they ask not to do this for reasons of RT congestion:

"UK2MD contact Heathrow Director on 119.72 with callsign only"

Now, a radar heading is not a true track, it is the magnetic heading that ATC wants you to fly. ATC will apply correction for variation and wind if necessary.

cheers!
foggy

A while ago on a flight into EDI when I had recently got my IMC and had very little IFR experience in CAS I had to ask Scottish control what this meant after he had asked me my heading and said "make that your radar heading". He patiently explained that it was the heading I now had to maintain under the RCS until I was told otherwise. Since then I have found this phrase used very often in CAS but am still surprised that there is no mention of it in CAP 413.

A "radar heading", in the context of the question by wobblyprop, is simply a heading to fly as specified by a radar controller.

Am I the only one who finds it amazing that two pilots, one of whom is working towards his ATPL and the other who has an IMC rating, are prepared to admit they have no idea what is meant by 'radar heading'? What are your instructors doing? As part of your IMC training were you never given a radar vectored ILS or Surveillance Radar Approach?

If you really do have no idea of the concept then there is something sorely lacking in your training, and you need to ask your instructors what they think they are doing.

It may be however that you have actually been following radar headings without knowing what they are called. They are the bread and butter of ATC these days, and are commonplace. The advantage for us as pilots is that the navigation element is done for us by ATC, but it is easy to relax and lose your situational awareness, and when you get the phrase "Resume own navigation to.." you have no idea where you are! (Although technically we are supposed to give you your position with a "resume own nav" you will find that in the airways environment this is seldom done.)

I can honestly say that i have never been told to report my heading as a radar heading. I've done my IMC and i'm about to start my IR.

Yes, i have been given radar vectors to ILS but thought that this "radar heading" business was something different.

Thanks for all your replies

The phrase 'Radar Heading' is used by a lot of controllers in the UK but is not standard phraseology.

Personally the word 'radar' is an extra one which is not required and not one I use.

Amazing, pilots that do not know that this instruction means "fly heading....".

Track has little to do with heading. Still wind your Hdg (M) will be your Track (M).

Well I'm obviously wrong and have been for years, just as well I earn 90% of my salary as an Engineer.

Can anybody point to the definitive answer in a document somewhere. It must be there?

Last I recall being given it was by an RAF controller diverting me.

Maybe we should cross-post to the ATC forum and see what they mean by it, which is probably the important interpretation.

G

There was a recent thread about the reporting radar headings (and flight level) on handover. Although it assumes people know what a 'radar heading' is, it explains just why ATCOs ask for that information to be provided on contact.

Handovers

Basically, if one ATCO puts you on a heading (probably to keep you separated) and then transfers you, if you don't tell the new ATCO that you're on a heading you could continue on that heading and into other traffic, with the new ATCO thinking you're following the filed routing. So if the ATCO asks you to contact the next frequency with heading (or any other piece of information) do it - it's for your safety! :ok:

An aircraft can have only one heading. When you look on the dash, the compass will provide it. The way the aircraft is pointing, measured in degrees magnetic.
The confusion arising is the phrase 'radar heading'. If you are flying under your own nav, you are flying a heading to make good a track. That heading will vary for wind etc. When a controller talks about a radar heading, she means 'disregard your track just look at the compass and fly according to the magnetic heading that I tell you.' The 'radar' bit is just emphasising that you are under radar control. It actually has no meaning. The pilot then picks this up, and on transfer reports 'radar heading ...' to emphasise that he is on a heading not necessarily of his choice ie. not making good a track.
When you get the 'report heading', then 'make that a radar heading' thing, the controller is just making sure that you continue going across the screen in a straight line. Your heading is making good a track, and though the controller doesn't really care about the track, locks you on that heading, taking responsiblity for nav off you, to keep you going in a straight line across the radar for his purposes. In other words, giving you a vector without taking you away from where you want to go.

Further to ferris' reply:

In the UK at least, we still work on the requirement to use radar headings for separation. For example, if we have two aircraft head on or side by side and we need to climb or descend one through the other, we have to lock them on radar headings. Those headings will be selected at the time we decide to take the action, and will take no account of changing winds as the aircraft change level. More than a few people have been caught out by putting both aircraft on the same heading, only to find them drifting together as the wind takes effect.

Seeing as most common transport aircraft are FMS equipped today, it would be far easier and more reliable in terms of maintaining a track which will keep them apart if we could, for example, tell the aircraft to fly left or right by 3 miles from an airway centreline. Most FMS will maintain that far better than will a radar heading picked 10,000ft earlier. Provided we tell the aircraft not to deviate until advised and monitor it on radar I can't see the problem. Until such time, however, the scenarios described by ferris will continue to occur.

Further to what eyeinthesky said about tracks, with todays' electric aeroplanes why don't ATC point us in the direction they require and then say "maintain that track". No further problems with changing winds etc and we will fly along a very straight line on their display!

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.

We are after all constantly bombarded with the need for standard phraseology, with 'horror stories' such as Tenerife 1977 being quoted as the reason why and yet some professional pilots are implying a criticism of instructors for not teaching something that is, at least officially, a 'bad thing.'

This sounds like a bit of a mess to me.

The trouble is, Mushroom_2, not every aircraft can do what yours does. When the controller is running aircraft on tight separations I guess most would prefer to use techniques that they are familiar with and which they are more in 'control' of. Most procedures are predicated on traditional navigation techniques too so controllers get relatively little experience of what aircraft will do. Give it time - things will change.

Wobblyprop,

I've also heard it called assigned heading.

Mike R
NATCA FWA

Yet more ignorance displayed by controllers here.

How can you bag instructors for teaching standard phraseology? The 'radar' part of 'radar heading is totally superfluous, non-standard and should not be used. Agree with Pprune Radar here.
(Foghorn- should have gone with your instincts and not told Genghis he was wrong!)

Erm, a 'radar heading' as in common usage by UK ATCOs is still a heading and not track is it not, even if it is not in CAP413?

Or am I getting really confused now??

cheers!
foggy.

You mean as in "Turn left heading ..." etc. You will notice the word 'radar' is conspicuous by it's absence. It is not there, for good reason........it is totally superfluous.
When I was training, I used to whacked over the back of the head for using superfluous R/T, such as 'radar heading', 'from present position' etc.
Standardisation is meant to keep these sort of things from springing up and becoming common parlance.

Foghorn; All this confusion seems to be arising precisely because the term 'radar heading' is being used. If the (correct) term 'heading' was used, nobody would (should?) be confused by headings and tracks. So, maybe you were correct in challenging Genghis' statement, if there is a perception out there that 'true track' somehow comes into it, but don't provide incorrect gen. You know what it's like with the flying types- gotta speak slowly and keep it as simple as poss.;)