radar heading
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar heading is something experienced daily. In fact I'm hard put to remember a flight when I wasn't on a radar heading at some stage of the proceedings. I too am astonished that people are reaching an advanced stage of their training without understanding this ATC instruction.
Developing this theme, it's also the procedure to report, when coming on a new frequency, if you've been cleared direct to some waypoint by the previous controller, missing out one or more intermediate waypoints.
Developing this theme, it's also the procedure to report, when coming on a new frequency, if you've been cleared direct to some waypoint by the previous controller, missing out one or more intermediate waypoints.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Around
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vector4fun
Yes you always are a litle bit different on the west side of the pond
There it is the only place I fly into where I am supposed to "position and hold" insted of "line up and wait"
We all have our little quirks.
PS. The only stupid question is the one not asked.
Yes you always are a litle bit different on the west side of the pond
There it is the only place I fly into where I am supposed to "position and hold" insted of "line up and wait"
We all have our little quirks.
PS. The only stupid question is the one not asked.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There it is the only place I fly into where I am supposed to "position and hold" insted of "line up and wait"
Humus Motor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: A little place called Samsonite
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steady on chaps! I know wobblyprop and he's a dead keen bright fella struggling for his licences - he is about to start his IR, so he hasn't been in the controlled airspace environment yet, so how about a bit of water-cooling on the harumphs about his instruction. He probably phoned me to ask (he often does) but I've been in the sim.
Bet he does now though!
Bet he does now though!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brasil
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eyeinthesky said that
If it's not standard, why blame the two pilot's instructors?!? What if now we become to use, besides "radar heading" in UK, "HSI heading" in Portugal, "compass heading" in Germany, "straight heading" in Canada or any other "heading" around the world?
For me, it just adds confusion. Why not use just heading?!?!?
I do not agree when you say
Under radar vectors, unless you reach a clearance limit (or, of course, for safety reasons), you should maintain your heading - even if you are transfered to another freq. Or am I wrong?
When you suggested to use "report the radar heading to..", why not use "report heading to..."? What's the difference?
Rememeber Tenerife ("hold" x "roll"). It's dangerous to start using non-standard terms - think a little bit on pilots who do not fly so regularly to your country and do not have english as their mother tongue. They are not supposed to know your "common-used-non-standard-phraseology".
PP
Standard phraseology or not, 'radar heading' is in common use in the UK and is in my opinion clear and concise.
For me, it just adds confusion. Why not use just heading?!?!?
I do not agree when you say
Just to tell someone to report their heading to another controller may not make it clear that they are supposed to stay on it.
When you suggested to use "report the radar heading to..", why not use "report heading to..."? What's the difference?
Rememeber Tenerife ("hold" x "roll"). It's dangerous to start using non-standard terms - think a little bit on pilots who do not fly so regularly to your country and do not have english as their mother tongue. They are not supposed to know your "common-used-non-standard-phraseology".
PP
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pp:
"When you suggested to use "report the radar heading to..", why not use "report heading to..."? What's the difference?"
The difference is that unless you have previously told them to "Continue on the heading" they might not know that they are restricted.
Just for info:
My MATS Part 1 (which I will admit has not been updated for several years) has the following entry in Appendix E (Phraseology):
Section: Transfer on a Heading
Phraseology "Report radar heading to (ATCU callsign) on (frequency)"
I'm not at work now, and will check the Part 1 (if I can find one) when I do get there, but that seems fairly clear to me.
It may well be that it has since been deleted from the book, but the situation is that many people (such as me) will not be aware of that and old habits die hard.
Just for further illustration, there was a loss of separation a couple of years ago when a controller used standard phraseology:
"Maintain FL320, Lambourne 3A arrival Heathrow".
Unfortunately she suffered from cognitive error and the aircraft was actually at FL340 with one at FL320 underneath. Despite the clear instruction to MAINTAIN a level (i.e. no clearance to CLIMB or DESCEND which have different standard phrases) the pilot used agreed US practice where "MAINTAIN" can mean "CLIMB or DESCEND to and MAINTAIN" and almost wiped out the one beneath him instead of querying the incorrect level.
Standard phraseology did not help then, and if by using 'radar heading' instead of 'heading' I can get my point across clearer, then I will continue to do so. Of course if any such as Wobblyprop or Fred are unsure of the meaning then I will help them out as my colleague in Scotland did.
"When you suggested to use "report the radar heading to..", why not use "report heading to..."? What's the difference?"
The difference is that unless you have previously told them to "Continue on the heading" they might not know that they are restricted.
Just for info:
My MATS Part 1 (which I will admit has not been updated for several years) has the following entry in Appendix E (Phraseology):
Section: Transfer on a Heading
Phraseology "Report radar heading to (ATCU callsign) on (frequency)"
I'm not at work now, and will check the Part 1 (if I can find one) when I do get there, but that seems fairly clear to me.
It may well be that it has since been deleted from the book, but the situation is that many people (such as me) will not be aware of that and old habits die hard.
Just for further illustration, there was a loss of separation a couple of years ago when a controller used standard phraseology:
"Maintain FL320, Lambourne 3A arrival Heathrow".
Unfortunately she suffered from cognitive error and the aircraft was actually at FL340 with one at FL320 underneath. Despite the clear instruction to MAINTAIN a level (i.e. no clearance to CLIMB or DESCEND which have different standard phrases) the pilot used agreed US practice where "MAINTAIN" can mean "CLIMB or DESCEND to and MAINTAIN" and almost wiped out the one beneath him instead of querying the incorrect level.
Standard phraseology did not help then, and if by using 'radar heading' instead of 'heading' I can get my point across clearer, then I will continue to do so. Of course if any such as Wobblyprop or Fred are unsure of the meaning then I will help them out as my colleague in Scotland did.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brasil
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I honestly can say that I've never heard radar heading before (despite the fact that I would maintain it in the event of changing control).
More important to say is that I deeply think that, unless reaching a clearance limit or for safety reasons (Ok, I know I'm repeating it...), you cannot change your heading when under radar vectors. This would be true if I was told "radar heading" or just "heading". - it doesn't matter for me.
Is it different in UK? Any other member can say anything about other countries (could be under ICAO or FAA rules)?
Best regards,
PP
More important to say is that I deeply think that, unless reaching a clearance limit or for safety reasons (Ok, I know I'm repeating it...), you cannot change your heading when under radar vectors. This would be true if I was told "radar heading" or just "heading". - it doesn't matter for me.
Is it different in UK? Any other member can say anything about other countries (could be under ICAO or FAA rules)?
Best regards,
PP
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A very Dark Place
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still can't find the Radar Vectoring Area Charts in the UK AIP. With reference to my previous post someone must be able to help - after all, those flying in the UK must be using them every day! Any takers? I don't believe the lack of response is because pilots are accepting descent instructions under radar control without checking terrain clearance themselves?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Using heading on its own could be misunderstood.
To me a heading is the way the aircraft happens to be pointed and in the absence of other constraints the pilot can alter it to suit his or her navigational needs
A radar heading is a heading assigned by a radar controller and the pilot should not alter it until released from it by a radar controller.
As has been pointed out, the reason for advising that an aircraft is on a radar heading on first contact is because some sectors don't co-ordinate such instructions (and effectively are getting the pilot to do it for them) or because controllers are only human and may simply forget!
To me a heading is the way the aircraft happens to be pointed and in the absence of other constraints the pilot can alter it to suit his or her navigational needs
A radar heading is a heading assigned by a radar controller and the pilot should not alter it until released from it by a radar controller.
As has been pointed out, the reason for advising that an aircraft is on a radar heading on first contact is because some sectors don't co-ordinate such instructions (and effectively are getting the pilot to do it for them) or because controllers are only human and may simply forget!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Radar Heading' has always irritated me;as mentioned, it's not even standard.
To confirm that you're receiving 'vectors' is an important distinction as the controller is then responsible for obstacle clearance.
Spitoon.
What the controller gives you is a vector, to maintain the present heading.
To confirm that you're receiving 'vectors' is an important distinction as the controller is then responsible for obstacle clearance.
Spitoon.
What the controller gives you is a vector, to maintain the present heading.
Guest
Posts: n/a
And for Gerund here's the RVA for Aberdeen. No reason for picking Aberdeen - it was just the first on the list. The RVAs are there - are you looking in right site? Oh, and you do have to log in to the site in order to get access to the content so the link may not work directly.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For eyeinthesky (or any one else):
No need to look at your out of date Pt 1, or search for one at work, just go here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493__Part1.pdf
Caution: It's 2MB.
The bad news: Can't see that what you are seeing is still in Appendix E.
No need to look at your out of date Pt 1, or search for one at work, just go here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493__Part1.pdf
Caution: It's 2MB.
The bad news: Can't see that what you are seeing is still in Appendix E.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A very Dark Place
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon
Many thanks for the reference. I was looking on the right site but was relying on the statement in section 1.6.1 para 6.2.4.2 of the ENR Section of the AIP that the RVAs "appear at the end of this section". Pity they are in the AD Section
Thanks again.
Miserlou
I see that you are from Denmark/UK. Be very careful about the 'controller being responsible for terrain clearance' when receiving 'radar vectors'. (Althought what 'responsible' means I don't know; does it mean he will get into trouble when you have been flown into a mountain?). Typically, and confusingly, the good old UK has all these strange differences from the world of aviation worldwide and you may be thinking the controller is responsible for your terrain clearance when in fact he is not, even when giving you radar vectors!
If you receive a Radar Advisory Service in the UK the controllers will expect you to accept vectors or level allocations (possibly in IMC), but YOU remain responsible for the terrain clearance.
If you receive a Radar Information Service in the UK the controllers may provide radar vectors but there is no requirement for you to accept the vectors but, even if you do, YOU remain responsible for the terrain clearance.
So what does this mean? It means who cares who is responsible - check your own terrain clearance at all times. It seems that if a controller is responsible for terrain clearance it only means he will be a bit more careful not to lose his job!
Many thanks for the reference. I was looking on the right site but was relying on the statement in section 1.6.1 para 6.2.4.2 of the ENR Section of the AIP that the RVAs "appear at the end of this section". Pity they are in the AD Section
Thanks again.Miserlou
I see that you are from Denmark/UK. Be very careful about the 'controller being responsible for terrain clearance' when receiving 'radar vectors'. (Althought what 'responsible' means I don't know; does it mean he will get into trouble when you have been flown into a mountain?). Typically, and confusingly, the good old UK has all these strange differences from the world of aviation worldwide and you may be thinking the controller is responsible for your terrain clearance when in fact he is not, even when giving you radar vectors!
If you receive a Radar Advisory Service in the UK the controllers will expect you to accept vectors or level allocations (possibly in IMC), but YOU remain responsible for the terrain clearance.
If you receive a Radar Information Service in the UK the controllers may provide radar vectors but there is no requirement for you to accept the vectors but, even if you do, YOU remain responsible for the terrain clearance.
So what does this mean? It means who cares who is responsible - check your own terrain clearance at all times. It seems that if a controller is responsible for terrain clearance it only means he will be a bit more careful not to lose his job!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gerund.
You're right of course; we're always first on the scene of the accident and its not a matter of who's right but who's left!
That may be a local variation on our part. Our SOP requires a call from PNF when descending below MSA under radar vectors and visual approaches; it increases the situational awareness.
One never takes anything for granted and question all which you don't understand.
You're right of course; we're always first on the scene of the accident and its not a matter of who's right but who's left!
That may be a local variation on our part. Our SOP requires a call from PNF when descending below MSA under radar vectors and visual approaches; it increases the situational awareness.
One never takes anything for granted and question all which you don't understand.
Gerund
I don't know where you get that from. MATS Pt 1 says in Ch 5:
Looks pretty clear to me that when a controller assigns a level to an aircraft on a radar vector or vice versa, the controller takes responsibility for terrain clearance.
I don't know where you get that from. MATS Pt 1 says in Ch 5:
13.1 Controllers are to ensure that levels assigned to:
a) IFR flights in receipt of a radar control service
b) flights in receipt of a radar advisory service and
c) flights in receipt of a radar information service and receiving vectors;
provide adequate terrain clearance for the phase of flight [as shown below].
13.2 Radar controllers have no responsibility for the terrain clearance of, and shall not assign levels to, aircraft:
a) in receipt of a radar information service when not subject to radar vectors or
b) operating SVFR or VFR within controlled airspace which accept radar vectors.
a) IFR flights in receipt of a radar control service
b) flights in receipt of a radar advisory service and
c) flights in receipt of a radar information service and receiving vectors;
provide adequate terrain clearance for the phase of flight [as shown below].
13.2 Radar controllers have no responsibility for the terrain clearance of, and shall not assign levels to, aircraft:
a) in receipt of a radar information service when not subject to radar vectors or
b) operating SVFR or VFR within controlled airspace which accept radar vectors.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A very Dark Place
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi bookworm
I got it from the UK AIP:
ENR 1.6.1 para 3.1 Radar Advisory Service (RAS), subpara 3.1.1 (relating to conditions applying to RAS):
(b) Controllers will expect the pilot to accept vectors or level allocations..............
(g) The pilot remains responsible for terrain clearance..................
Under para 6 relating to Terrain Clearance it states, para 6.2:
Controllers will ensure that levels assigned to IFR flights when in receipt of a Radar Control Service and to flights in receipt of a RAS will provide at least the minimum terrain clearances given below:
ie The controller has a duty to provide terrain clearance in these cases, but the responsibility under a RAS remains with the pilot.
But as I have said before, what the devil does ‘responsibility’ actually mean? It certainly can’t mean that if the controller accepts ‘responsibility’ then the pilot can accept vectors and/or levels without checking himself. After all, all pilots accepting radar vectors and level assignments will check there is no conflict with the MSAs, MEAs outside radar vectoring areas, and within them will check the RVA chart. Or I certainly hope so!! A controller making a mistake .......................??
I know England is fairly flat (even though some masts can get pretty high in some RVAs), but consider approaching Cape Town International (at an elevation of 151 ft) on radial 120. The Radar Terrrain Clearance (RSA terminology) Chart gives you 1,000ft terrain clearance at 8,500ft at 16 dme. Clearance down to 6,500ft at 20 dme on a vector might sound reasonable – how nice to have checked, even if the controller is ‘responsible’!!
So, if anyone would like to suggest what 'responsible', in this context, might mean I would love to know.
I got it from the UK AIP:
ENR 1.6.1 para 3.1 Radar Advisory Service (RAS), subpara 3.1.1 (relating to conditions applying to RAS):
(b) Controllers will expect the pilot to accept vectors or level allocations..............
(g) The pilot remains responsible for terrain clearance..................
Under para 6 relating to Terrain Clearance it states, para 6.2:
Controllers will ensure that levels assigned to IFR flights when in receipt of a Radar Control Service and to flights in receipt of a RAS will provide at least the minimum terrain clearances given below:
ie The controller has a duty to provide terrain clearance in these cases, but the responsibility under a RAS remains with the pilot.
But as I have said before, what the devil does ‘responsibility’ actually mean? It certainly can’t mean that if the controller accepts ‘responsibility’ then the pilot can accept vectors and/or levels without checking himself. After all, all pilots accepting radar vectors and level assignments will check there is no conflict with the MSAs, MEAs outside radar vectoring areas, and within them will check the RVA chart. Or I certainly hope so!! A controller making a mistake .......................??
I know England is fairly flat (even though some masts can get pretty high in some RVAs), but consider approaching Cape Town International (at an elevation of 151 ft) on radial 120. The Radar Terrrain Clearance (RSA terminology) Chart gives you 1,000ft terrain clearance at 8,500ft at 16 dme. Clearance down to 6,500ft at 20 dme on a vector might sound reasonable – how nice to have checked, even if the controller is ‘responsible’!!
So, if anyone would like to suggest what 'responsible', in this context, might mean I would love to know.
I tend to the gross generalisation that a controller is responsible for not getting me lost and for keeping me away from other controlled traffic. Not flying into anything bolted down, I've always regarded as my own responsibility, as is not hitting uncontrolled traffic outside controlled airspace.
Probably not the exact wording in the AIP, but works for me.
G
Probably not the exact wording in the AIP, but works for me.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A very Dark Place
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
Fair enough!
These threads can go on a bit, but it is sometimes fun to discuss the minutiae. Keeps the brain cells active and makes sure the various books don't gather too much dust.
Happy flying!
Fair enough!
These threads can go on a bit, but it is sometimes fun to discuss the minutiae. Keeps the brain cells active and makes sure the various books don't gather too much dust.
Happy flying!
Gerund
Quite so -- I should have checked the source you cited!
I wonder if there are occasions on which this apparent doubling up of responsibility might cause issues. I don't think you're splitting hairs here -- accidents get caused by different interpretations of minutiae.
For what it's worth, pilots are not absolved of their Rule 29 responsibility for terrain clearance under IFR even when flying in controlled airspace. Is that what it's getting at?
Quite so -- I should have checked the source you cited!
I wonder if there are occasions on which this apparent doubling up of responsibility might cause issues. I don't think you're splitting hairs here -- accidents get caused by different interpretations of minutiae.
For what it's worth, pilots are not absolved of their Rule 29 responsibility for terrain clearance under IFR even when flying in controlled airspace. Is that what it's getting at?