What is runway heading?
 

When asked to maintain runway heading after takeoff do you fly the heading of the runway, or do you correct for drift and maintain the runway track?

MB
:8

Track.

To follow heading and not allow for drift could be fatal coming out of somewhere like CDG. You will also get a bollocking from atc.

That one has floored many a check ride candidate - to my knowledge "runway heading" implies exactly that: maintain the heading (the thinking being that if everone does, all have the same drift off track). However if the SID or missed approach states anything to do with "track" the ball game changes.
But then again I could be proved wrong!

Runway heading is no longer used in the UK, in theory at least. The term straight ahead is used to mean track the extended centreline.

In the UK there is no phraseology for a 'runway heading' departure anymore. This was changed precisely because of the confusion.

Pilots will either be instructed to 'continue present heading' (you may drift off the extended centreline depending upon the wind) or to 'continue straight ahead' (you should TRACK the extended centreline making corrections for drift).

However, the majority of UK traffic will be cleared on SID departures anyhow and the pilot will be expected to follow the track of the route. The clearances above will only be used when required by ATC as part of the big game plan.

From a UK perspective, the reference is CAP413, Chapter 1 page 4 "Definitions".

Straight Ahead on takeoff = Track Runway extended centreline.
Straight Ahead in Missed Approach Procedures = Continue on Final Approach Track.

We're just a poor fellas who don't know what to do, of course. However I remember seeing an "explanatory" :\ local ATS leaflet regarding just this. I.E. the difference between instructions continue straight-ahead and fly runway heading.

From my point of view a heading is exactly what it is, a datum relating to imaginary direction up north and airplane's longitudinal axis.

ATC know what they want and 99% of the time they say exactly so. Among other issues, it's the iceberg of the 1% that makes flying so darn complex as it is.

What is Runway Heading?
 

<< ... follow heading and not allow for drift could well be fatal coming out of somewhere like CDG..." >>

Sorry Muppet... but what obstacles did you have in mind? The Pyrenees? Alps? Black Mountains? My gray cells may be going slowly AWOL but I recall CDG being in an area as flat as a witch's t*t. I will concede on the ATC bollocking though.... sometimes it's the only time they speak to you! bm

Gee, Boeing MEL ... I've just searched Muppet's post with a fine-toothed comb, and I don't find the word "obstacle" in his post anywhere. Try to expand your mind a bit and think .... hmmm...what might he have meant ... 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?

ok, I'll stop the silly sarcastic nonsense if you promise to think a bit more before hitting "Submit Reply" on your next post.

Just what I thought. We do not agree on this matter!
I think the British were spot on when they discontinued using this phrase. Nevertheless this is widely used and pilots will probably argue about this for time to come.
Then...Heading IS heading, and track isn´t heading except in fairyland where the wind is calm and all aircraft in trim.

MB
:8

All the SIDs in the region I'm flying in start with 'Climb straight ahead......'. I think that's fairly self explanatory. Having said that though, very few do. I onced asked a contoller at a meeting with ATC this very question. His answer was that if given by the tower they are looking for runway track, if given after departure then it will be a heading. Made perfect sense to me but unless it's in writing then we're going to end back on this forum....

It used to be that 'after departure, maintain runway heading' meant 'don't apply drift after you're airborne', whereas 'straight ahead' meant that you had to appy drift in order to follow the extended runwy centreline. Particularly important if parallel runway operations are in force and there's a significant crosswind.

But the UK military often say 'maintain runway track' - not CAP 413, but it's pretty obvious!

I have to agree:

a Heading is a heading - i.e. no wind correction.

CDG was mentioned. Last time I was there they gave instructions to "climb on rwy centerline". However, I have heard them (another controller) during the same period give "rwy heading".

It seems that they by "rwy heading" mean the centerline - which goes against what I have been tought and done since starting to fly. But, then again, (to be diplomatic) everything is not exactly crystal clear around CDG...

The controversy developed with the mix of steam driven instruments and FMS..With parra lell runway depts(like Toronto),the 'upwind'traffic started to approach the FMS(centreline) traffic,due to drift-Ergo all traffic had to dept 'on runway heading'(drift with the crosswind)
I imagine 'once the world is FMS'straight out Depts will apply...
Cheers:O

I keep falling back to "well in this country".....but in this country heading and track are obviously two different things. If a SID or a controller says fly runway heading then that is exactly what is expected regardless of drift. If I am expected on a particular track then the instruction will be to maintain an identified airway/air route or inbound or outbound on a track of xxx. Nothing could be simpler really.

In the U.S., "Runway Heading" means:



Source: Pilot Controller Glossary

Oz uses 'runway heading' similarly to the US. Makes a lot more sense to me than any concept that redefines a heading to mean a track.

haven't looked this one up for quite a few years but taking off in some places you should account for drift and fly the heading to maintain the r/w c/l if safe, i have noticed some sids that say maintain r/w heading but if theres a storming crosswind it could blow you straight into a hill !
contoller still gets to go home that day !

I suspect that this is one of those things that have grown up from earlier times and become entrenched in the system. Maybe it had its' genesis in the fact that each runway heads in a specific direction. In any event, we all make an effort to remain on the centreline during each take-off so aren't we all actually maintaining a track anyway?

That's the way I've always looked at this issue, so an instruction to maintain runway heading means, to me, that ATC expects me to stay on the extended centreline. I figure that this is one of the main reasons why runway data includes the actual magnetic bearing of the runway. I can't see any other interpretation that would be safe in all circumstances, especially when one considers the protection that is afforded in the surveyed take-off area.

Simple.

PANSOPS: Maintain runway track. (i.e drift corrected).

TERPS: Maintain runway heading. (i.e no drift correction).

TERPS are used in N and S America, Japan, Taiwan and Korea. Rest of the world uses PANSOPS. Know what you should be using (it should tell you what rules you should be following on your approach plates). If you are flying one of the more modern glass Boeings, the FMC knows where you are and applies the correct command to the FD/AP.

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?

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!

PANS ATM (Doc 4444) has the following in chapter 12 of typical phraseologies:
Which seems pretty clear to me.

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.

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? :}

Trader see my post of 5 Jan. "Straight ahead" means Track in UK. No confusion whatever.

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..? :confused:

Keep it polite and professional please, folks. :ok:

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

;)

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!"

:D

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!

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?)

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.

A perfect summary 604guy :)

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

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.

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.