QTM or QDM misuse
 

Mr Buzzy, I agree 100%.
Thread drift I know, but I also believe QDM is being over and misused. From Ralph Kloth's web site.
QTM* What is your MAGNETIC heading? My MAGNETIC heading is ... degrees.
QDM Will you indicate the MAGNETIC heading for me to steer towards you (or ...) with no wind? The MAGNETIC heading for you to steer to reach me (or ...) with no wind was ... degrees (at ... hours).

It has nothing to do with runways at all. It goes back to HF or VHF DF days, or VDF to drop another acronym.
QDM and QTM sound very similar and have related meanings, but neither is correct in this context. In a limited sense QTM is possibly more appropriate.
73s to those who know what that means.

While we are on thread drift (as opposed to correcting for drift), thank you Harrowing for the reference to the Q codes. Even an old bloke like me occasionally learns something new. However, it is also interesting to do a Google on QDM and find that even the famous Boeing Company uses it in reference to runway alignment. Seems that it is one of those common-usage things that has passed into aviation-speak. Another one which is more localised: flying in Blighty, QSY (with reference to frequency changes) - hopefully only used on the locals.

This was sorted out 20 years ago at the regular CASA - Industry meetings we used to have at AF. Obviously today's CASA don't think there is any value in these regular meetings.

means exactly that. Fly a heading with no drift compensation.

In 30 years I never heard the phase " maintain runway track".

How would you do it unless a navaid was located on the extended runway centreline or you back-tracked an ILS?

I've heard it quite a few times. Even pre-PPL students seem to be able to pick a reference point before takeoff and allow drift to track on the extended centreline.

(yawn smilie time 5 as no such one exists)

Please folks, aren't there more interesting/stimulating topics???

b.

Well our modern aircraft with FMS/GNSS/INS have a function enabling them to track upwind on an extended centreline until given some other input such as heading, direct to a waypoint etc. The other method is using a tracking diamond or some such once airborne, the diamond or other shape shows the TMG so one simply heads to keep the shape on the required track.

Obviously you thought it worth lobbing a grenade when you could have moved on.:ooh:

These two posts are very telling. I think flying an RNAV approach is pretty simple, but it killed 15 people a little while ago. I think loading enough fuel is pretty simple but we had splash down near Norfolk Island a little while ago.

You guys are making my point for me. YOU THINK you KNOW what the correct answer is, or what the ATCO intends but what if you don't? Is it even possible you may be wrong in your assumption?

I started this thread after seeing the confusion at my company among VERY experienced pilots. So please refrain from telling me how SIMPLE this is.

The way you have phrased that sentence makes me believe you no longer fly, is that correct? I can assure you I hear it at least twice a week but it does seem to be a recent addition, as in say the last 2-3 years.

The correct Q code for runway track is QFU. :ok:

Tell 'em to use their experience to read AIP. All will be revealed. :ok:

Hmmm! Been flying for 37 years in two countries including 800 hrs in the last 5 yrs over a big chunk of Oz.

Can't recall EVER hearing, "Maintain runway track".

It weren't the RNV approach that killed those people! That was just one hole in a very holey swiss cheese!

Dr :8

Not in the right place at the right time.

But I did hear the phase "you can't land that here" from the tower after I had cleared the grass runway in a Citation.

The phase "maintain runway track" by itself is incorrect. The correct phase is "Cancel SID, maintain runway track ### degrees"

Not every aircraft has this capability.


The dangers associated with this type of approach were conveyed to CASA at meetings held to discuss GPS and its application to aviation and the design of GPS (RNAV) approaches.

In those days RNAV referred to a different method of navigation that did not make it to OZ.


CASA FOIs don't fly much either.

<<Heathrow Director, you THOUGHT you knew where he was going! From some of the dull-witted replies in the foregoing, it seems that there are still quite a few pilots who take it upon themselves to fly whatever THEY think will track the centreline >>

But I DID know where they were going because I never mentioned anything about runways or centrelines. I simply instructed them to fly a particular heading... and they did so.

Quite right...my omission. So the heading is left hanging, taken as known, but the track gets defined.:uhoh:

Yes, I thought that was obvious, but 601 you did ask...
I gave you a way that I do it along with many others.

Bloggs A unified and cohesive answer in the AIP, any chance of a clue as to the location?

Any more ATCO suggestions?

ENR 1.5.10.4.4 (page 1.5 - 36)

This is a direction given to an aircraft operating under the IFR. Visual reference points do not come into it.

You did say you had 'never' heard it.

I have heard it given to both VFR aircraft and IFR aircraft on visual departures (procedural airspace).
There are also plenty of SIDs that require a certain track to be maintained that is not coincident with any navaid whatsoever.

The phrases 'maintain runway track' and 'maintain runway heading' consist of nothing but standard phraseology so I cannot see why one or the other could not be issued to any aircraft regardless of the flight rules, flight conditions, or the licence held by the pilot in command.

Not uncommon on the Gurak departure off 03 at PH most mornings before Pearce opens for business. Some mornings you get runway track, others runway heading. Seems to depend on the wind strength I find.

Bagchucka,
Related to whether the PIC can maintain terrain clearance visually. If s/he can't ie before first light, s/he'll get "Maintain runway Track 016°". After first light, "Maintain runway heading". In a strong easterly after sunup, that's why I appear to "track" off to Hillarys. :eek:

If you read back through all the posts the point that arises is the meaning depends on which country you are in. The problem is compounded because of different pilots and controllers interpretation of what is 'obvious'. Once you've flown around the world a few times you find it quite astounding how unstandardised the rules of the air are. A common example is if altitude restrictions on SIDs and STARs are cancelled when cleared to a higher or lower altitude. CPDLC log on, Oceanic clearance procedures, etc etc etc.
Perhaps the guys that write the regional rules just don't know what each other are doing.
The Rwy Heading / Track discussion may sound trivial but it is another hole in the cheese that can cause real problems.

....... and the title of this thread is?

DG&P General Aviation & Questions, where D = Dunnunda!

Dr :8

That is what I thought when I started the thread. The most trivial and obvious things can really spoil your day.

I was confining the discussion to Australia in my mind but regional differences are of interest.

Do you appear to track off towards Hillarys, or do you in fact track off towards Hillarys?

Which begs the question why not just use "maintain rwy track 016 degrees" even in day vmc? Much tidier one would think. The aircraft will then be on a known path until departures muck it up, I mean give further instructions. Whereas each aircraft HEADING 016 degrees will give a different TMG due speed and climb rate through the wind levels.

Interesting topic. Could cause problems at somewhere like sydney with parallel rwys.........my understanding, rwy track maintains centerline (accounts for wind), while a heading does not account for wind.

Exactly, why there is so much discussion on this topic evades me haha!
It is not rocket science!