What is runway heading?
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: EU
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple?
You mean if I'm instructed to fly "rwy heading" (where PANS-OPS is applicable) I'm actually supposed to fly rwy TRACK?
Do you have a reference to where in PANS-OPS this can be found?
You mean if I'm instructed to fly "rwy heading" (where PANS-OPS is applicable) I'm actually supposed to fly rwy TRACK?
Do you have a reference to where in PANS-OPS this can be found?
This question is about ATC R/T Terminology. PANS-OPS doesn't deal with that, nor I suspect, do TERPS.
In UK, as I mentioned before, CAP413 removes all doubt. I think for once we got it right!
In UK, as I mentioned before, CAP413 removes all doubt. I think for once we got it right!
PANS ATM (Doc 4444) has the following in chapter 12 of typical phraseologies:
Which seems pretty clear to me.
12.3.4.12 TURN OR CLIMB INSTRUCTIONS AFTER TAKE-OFF:
... heading to be followed: CONTINUE RUNWAY HEADING (instructions)
... when a specific track is to be followed: TRACK EXTENDED CENTRE LINE (instructions)
... heading to be followed: CONTINUE RUNWAY HEADING (instructions)
... when a specific track is to be followed: TRACK EXTENDED CENTRE LINE (instructions)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that the UK authorities confused the issue further! An instruction to "fly staright ahead" does not tell em whether or not to fly heading or track...two very different things.
If they want you to fly runway heading then you fly the SPECIFIC heading, and the let the wind do what it may.
If the ask for a TRACK then you fly a path, over the ground, whicj means correcting for wind.
If they want you to fly runway heading then you fly the SPECIFIC heading, and the let the wind do what it may.
If the ask for a TRACK then you fly a path, over the ground, whicj means correcting for wind.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan Winterland... talking to colleagues in Japan, Taiwan and Korea recently, I learned that both Japan and Taiwan are changing over to Pans Ops and that Korea uses both criteria. I guess that simplifies things a lot, huh? 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Flying Heading...
Crótalo says:
"... what ELSE might present a hazard?
"...Oh yeah -- OTHER AIRCRAFT departing on closely-spaced parallel runways?! Do you suppose two aircraft colliding might produce fatal results?"
So what are you saying?....that a crosswind would affect only one of the two parallel departing airplanes and not the other..?
"... what ELSE might present a hazard?
"...Oh yeah -- OTHER AIRCRAFT departing on closely-spaced parallel runways?! Do you suppose two aircraft colliding might produce fatal results?"
So what are you saying?....that a crosswind would affect only one of the two parallel departing airplanes and not the other..?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with ANVAK.
In Oz, if one is assigned a 'heading', you fly that heading without taking into account wind drift. An assigned heading is usually given by ATC if the aircraft is cleared on a RADAR SID. The assigned heading is usually maintained until the MVA is reached and vectors provided.
An assigned heading is not usually given if the clearance includes a procedural (as opposed to RADAR) SID. In this case the LNAV of the procedural SID must be followed (which requires compensation for wind drift).
Cheers
In Oz, if one is assigned a 'heading', you fly that heading without taking into account wind drift. An assigned heading is usually given by ATC if the aircraft is cleared on a RADAR SID. The assigned heading is usually maintained until the MVA is reached and vectors provided.
An assigned heading is not usually given if the clearance includes a procedural (as opposed to RADAR) SID. In this case the LNAV of the procedural SID must be followed (which requires compensation for wind drift).
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Hampshire.
Age: 50
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just joking!
I would agree it means keep the aircraft over the extended runway centreline. That way you're in a position to accurately follow a SID. Also not considered yet is noise abatement which is taken into account when designing SIDs. I don't suppose the BAA or other airport owner would respond to a serious noise complaint by saying:
"Yes we are sorry you got woken up by the sound of jet engines Mr Nimby, but you see the plane got blown over your house by the wind so you really shouldn't be bothering us as it's not our fault!"
"Yes we are sorry you got woken up by the sound of jet engines Mr Nimby, but you see the plane got blown over your house by the wind so you really shouldn't be bothering us as it's not our fault!"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Formerly resident of Knoteatingham
Posts: 957
Received 121 Likes
on
61 Posts
I have just reread my Jepp notes. Rwy Heading is just that. "No allowance for drift shall be made." And, yes my notes are current!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, my brain cell hurts!
Heading = Track + Drift
Runway Heading = Runway QDM + 0 deg (since when did a lump of concrete anchored to mother Earth ever experience the effects of wind?)
ERGO, 'Maintain runway heading' = 'Fly the runway centreline'.
Or am I being thick and obtuse (as usual?)
Heading = Track + Drift
Runway Heading = Runway QDM + 0 deg (since when did a lump of concrete anchored to mother Earth ever experience the effects of wind?)
ERGO, 'Maintain runway heading' = 'Fly the runway centreline'.
Or am I being thick and obtuse (as usual?)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 68
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the life of me I can not understand what is so complicated about this.
HEADING = that's the bit you read at the top of your HSI or some similar device. When told to fly a certain heading, whether by ATC or some written instruction, you manipulate control surfaces on the aircraft until said heading appears at the 12:00 position of your heading indicator.....HSI, RMI, Compass, Ouija Board, whatever.
Track = a heading that acounts for external forces i.e.wind, in order to maintain a specific track across the face of the planet.
Let me ask a question. If some of you are receiving radar vectors and are told to "turn right to 240" do you have 240 as an indicated heading or are you doing mental gymnastics or consulting your FMS in order to find a heading that will give you a TRACK of 240? Hopefully you are turning to a HEADING of 240. It's the same thing with maintain runway heading. How about if you are decending into the terminal area and told "maintain present heading". As you descend it's a fair bet that the winds are going to change somewhat. Do you maintain the heading that you had when you were given that instuction from ATC or do you continually maneuver the aircraft to maintain a track? Again, hopefully you are still on the same heading. It's the same thing as "maintain runway heading".
I might mention that my significant other is one of those folks on the other side of the mike.......you know one of those that might say something like "maintain present heading" and she agrees with my view.
HEADING = that's the bit you read at the top of your HSI or some similar device. When told to fly a certain heading, whether by ATC or some written instruction, you manipulate control surfaces on the aircraft until said heading appears at the 12:00 position of your heading indicator.....HSI, RMI, Compass, Ouija Board, whatever.
Track = a heading that acounts for external forces i.e.wind, in order to maintain a specific track across the face of the planet.
Let me ask a question. If some of you are receiving radar vectors and are told to "turn right to 240" do you have 240 as an indicated heading or are you doing mental gymnastics or consulting your FMS in order to find a heading that will give you a TRACK of 240? Hopefully you are turning to a HEADING of 240. It's the same thing with maintain runway heading. How about if you are decending into the terminal area and told "maintain present heading". As you descend it's a fair bet that the winds are going to change somewhat. Do you maintain the heading that you had when you were given that instuction from ATC or do you continually maneuver the aircraft to maintain a track? Again, hopefully you are still on the same heading. It's the same thing as "maintain runway heading".
I might mention that my significant other is one of those folks on the other side of the mike.......you know one of those that might say something like "maintain present heading" and she agrees with my view.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being as how the original question related to "runway heading", rather than a heading on a radar vector, I must disagree with you 604guy. If given an instruction to maintain runway heading, I always assume that ATC wants me going the same way as the extended centreline of the runway. Now, to my feeble and saki-soaked brain, the extended centreline is a track, so I must correct for drift, in order to track out along that path.
This is most certainly NOT the same thing as flying a heading when ATC so directs, as in radar vectoring. Seems like we'll just have to agree to differ but, as I know the protection afforded to an aircraft after take-off is conventionally based around the extended centreline, I've always figured that I'm safer there than wandering (ooops... drifting) to one side or the other.
I also figure that, on the (rare) occasions when I get it exactly right during final approach, I'm actually tracking along the extended runway centreline. I may be unique here but, in a cross-wind, I prefer to stay aligned with the runway than to allow the aircraft to drift to one side of the other of the threshold.
This is most certainly NOT the same thing as flying a heading when ATC so directs, as in radar vectoring. Seems like we'll just have to agree to differ but, as I know the protection afforded to an aircraft after take-off is conventionally based around the extended centreline, I've always figured that I'm safer there than wandering (ooops... drifting) to one side or the other.
I also figure that, on the (rare) occasions when I get it exactly right during final approach, I'm actually tracking along the extended runway centreline. I may be unique here but, in a cross-wind, I prefer to stay aligned with the runway than to allow the aircraft to drift to one side of the other of the threshold.
I take 'heading' to mean just that. Maintain the longitudinal axis aligned with that number. That's how the term is defined. Doesn't matter what phrase was used to derive the relevent number - radar instruction, procedure design, runway alignment or whatever.
If TRACK is what is intended then I'd expect that term to be used. Or a functionally equivalent eg 'direction' ie maintain a specific path over the ground.
I certainly DON'T expect instructions to start using an already well defined term to mean some other - and different - well defined term.
If TRACK is what is intended then I'd expect that term to be used. Or a functionally equivalent eg 'direction' ie maintain a specific path over the ground.
I certainly DON'T expect instructions to start using an already well defined term to mean some other - and different - well defined term.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 12th Jan 2004 at 20:26.
Man of the Marsh
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really is incredible that this old chestnut still appears in aviation circles. As quoted by Voidhawk with reference to Doc 4444, and by 604guy, Tinstaafl, and many others with reference to common sense, the definitions of Heading and Track were carved in stone decades ago. I think Dan W was slightly misleading in his post as it did not actually clarify the definition of Heading in Pans-Ops.
Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), the modern equivalent of stone, defines it thus (1-1) :-
Heading. The direction in which the longitudinal axis of the aircraft is pointed, usually expressed in degrees from North (true, magnetic, compass or grid).
Track. The projection on the earth's surface of the path of an aircraft, the direction of which path at any point is usually expressed in degrees from North (true, magnetic or grid).
While PANS-ATM and PANS-OPS cover different aspects of the business, these ICAO docs are co-ordinated where definitions are concerned and virtually every nation is a signatory to them.
The Americans seem to have no problem with this, nor do most other nations. The UK has officially dropped "runway heading", as per bookworm's post, because of the apparent confusion involved; amply illustrated on this thread. By issuing Heading instructions, controllers know that all within their tactical plan will be affected equally by wind effect.
The notion posted by many here that Heading on suitable occasions actually means Track is laughable. If it sounds wrong to you, query it. If, as muppet experienced, you get a bollocking for correctly following an incorrect instruction, or the instruction would compromise obstacle or noise-abate paths, file an ASR/MOR (or whatever your system) after you land. It works wonders and will usually improve something.
Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), the modern equivalent of stone, defines it thus (1-1) :-
Heading. The direction in which the longitudinal axis of the aircraft is pointed, usually expressed in degrees from North (true, magnetic, compass or grid).
Track. The projection on the earth's surface of the path of an aircraft, the direction of which path at any point is usually expressed in degrees from North (true, magnetic or grid).
While PANS-ATM and PANS-OPS cover different aspects of the business, these ICAO docs are co-ordinated where definitions are concerned and virtually every nation is a signatory to them.
The Americans seem to have no problem with this, nor do most other nations. The UK has officially dropped "runway heading", as per bookworm's post, because of the apparent confusion involved; amply illustrated on this thread. By issuing Heading instructions, controllers know that all within their tactical plan will be affected equally by wind effect.
The notion posted by many here that Heading on suitable occasions actually means Track is laughable. If it sounds wrong to you, query it. If, as muppet experienced, you get a bollocking for correctly following an incorrect instruction, or the instruction would compromise obstacle or noise-abate paths, file an ASR/MOR (or whatever your system) after you land. It works wonders and will usually improve something.
Sorry if I misled you, but I didn't think a definition of heading was necessary. I had assumed most pilots could grasp the concept of a heading!
I was alluding to the fact that procedures are written to different criteria. Those departure procedures written under PANSOPS assume runway track will be maintained. Under TERPS, you maintain runway heading - in otherwords, no correction for drift.
This difference came to discussion last week when I did my line check out of Taipei. (Taiwan uses TERPS). Sure enough, the Jepp SID word description of the procedure mentioned heading, wheras a SID from a PANSOPS plate mentioned track.
This difference is not always understood. In the 744, you don't have to understand it. The FMC/FD knew where you were and gave you the command to fly the approprite reference. This applys to the MAP as well as the SID.
However, if a controller tells me to 'maintain runway heading', I for one would select heading and treat it as a radar heading until otherwise instructed. If he said 'maintain runway track', I would correct it for drift. I assume he/she knows what they're talking about and follow accordingly.
Personally, I think it's quite simple - but then again, I like simple things.
I was alluding to the fact that procedures are written to different criteria. Those departure procedures written under PANSOPS assume runway track will be maintained. Under TERPS, you maintain runway heading - in otherwords, no correction for drift.
This difference came to discussion last week when I did my line check out of Taipei. (Taiwan uses TERPS). Sure enough, the Jepp SID word description of the procedure mentioned heading, wheras a SID from a PANSOPS plate mentioned track.
This difference is not always understood. In the 744, you don't have to understand it. The FMC/FD knew where you were and gave you the command to fly the approprite reference. This applys to the MAP as well as the SID.
However, if a controller tells me to 'maintain runway heading', I for one would select heading and treat it as a radar heading until otherwise instructed. If he said 'maintain runway track', I would correct it for drift. I assume he/she knows what they're talking about and follow accordingly.
Personally, I think it's quite simple - but then again, I like simple things.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The phrase 'maintain rwy heading' may have been withdrawn from official ATC use, but I believe that the TWR controller uses it to send an aircraft down the extended centerline. I correct for drift if when given that instuction.
I agree that 'after departure continue staight ahead' or some such is much better phraseology.
I agree that 'after departure continue staight ahead' or some such is much better phraseology.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: japan
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add to the confusion in Japan the regs are quite specific in that if asked to fly runway heading they want you to fly runway number times 10 ie runway 34 departure would mean a heading of 340 even if the runway direction is 332 degres.