Runway Heading
 

Can anyone point me to a reference for the Pans Ops definition of Runway Heading?

The FAA and JCAB both understand it to mean a heading flown as the runway identifier times ten (e.g off runway 36R at Schipol, you would fly a heading of 390 Deg Mag even thought he QDM is 354.) but common practice in Europe seems to be to fly a heading to make good the extended center line.

Obviously there is scope for error if, in parallel operations, different people have different perceptions of what they should be flying.

FAA AIM
 

As per the FAA AIM "Runway Heading" The magnetic direction that corresponds with the runway centerline...Bla Bla Bla..but "Drift correction shall NOT be applied" If you center 044...fly 044.:hmm:

Wizofoz, I tried doing what you say today on departure from 36R at AMS, but no matter how hard I tried I could never turn far enough to get onto 390 deg Mag!!! :}

More fun than a spelling correction!

Actually, I agree with Jetdriver727, you fly the heading of the runway centreline, if you are asked to fly runway track, you apply wind correction.

Runway Heading and Runway Track are understood but could someone please enlighten me as to what is expected from ATC when the clearance is "On departure, climb straight ahead maintain three thousand feet".
Thank you in advance.

Then you'd need to apply drift to make good the track. Basically, you'd be flying the extended centerline on departure.Perhaps something to clarify if unsure.

RM-LOL!!!

However, as I said, I can assure you that under some countries procedures, "Runway Heading" means just as I described (Without the typo!!). I nearly failed a check in Japan for selecting QDM instead of the "Whole number" heading. I'm suprised by Jet Drivers answer as I thought that was the FAA definition too, but either there are contradictory definitions about, or things have been changed.

Can anyone supply a reference?

WizofOz- I copied that from the FAA AIM this morning. Not sure about the Regs in Japan. :}

This has been covered in great detail in a thread about a year ago. I'd have a look for it, but I'm about to hit the sack.

Suffice to say that in TERPS, runway heading is just that - with no drift correction. In PANSOPS 'straight ahead' means you maintain runway track and correct for drift. The Americas, Japan, Taiwan and Korea use TERPS, the rest of the world uses PANSOPS.

Either way, an important point is that in the event of a go around or eng fail on take off, the center of your protected airspace is the extended runway centerline. Where I work they teach to fly the extended centerline. This make sense as you would be takeing a risk, allbeit a small one, by maintaining heading in a strong crosswind for a single engine go around which is straight ahead

Thought the runway centreline was referred to as QFU?

Actually, Japan deviates from TERPS on this one. Here "Runway Heading" is the runway rumber x 10, eg Runway Heading for RWY 32 is 320 degrees. Not very different in practice, but JCAB is pedantic.

"Maintain rwy heading" on a departure clearance means that you should apply a drift correction to maintain rwy track..........exceptions: Australia, USA and Canada (fly rwy heading without drift correction).

Interestingly, in the following (Australian) Radar SID, the PIC is required to TRACK the runway direction until 600FT, at which time revert to the assigned HEADING. Theoretically, an assigned heading of, for example 016 off of RWY 01 in a howling Noreaster (admittedly rare) would se the aircraft drift quite few degrees at the magical 600FT mark:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...BNDP01-104.pdf

Straight ahead it's similar with 'track' so apply drift corrections.
There are airports,if I'm not mistaken for ex CDG ,where you're specifically told on procedures to maintain rwy track.
If told to maintain rwy heading ,then you should not apply drift.If ,for ex ,rwy heading is 080 ,then select hdg 080 and maintain it,no drift correction required.
Adherence to these procedures is more important in areas with parallel operation,where airplanes must fly track or heading on departures,as instructed,but not both on the same time,which can result in loss of separation between airplanes,if high crosswind exists.
GBZ: so ,if at cruise ,you're told to maintain a hdg of XXX,and you see you have X-wind of 80 kts,for ex,you apply 10 deg correction to XXX? 10,or 11,or 9...
If this is the case,you're doing it wrong,my friend.
You should select XXX in the HDG MCP window,and that's all you have to do.
Sometimes ATC asks what's you're heading,then tell you to take 10 deg to the right...you apply correction also here?How much?...

bobrun and Alexban,

You have both just given totally contradictory answers. can either of you supply a reference?

I've searched the net,but no succes in finding a Pansops site,so ,next time on office I'll check some books..
My explanation is based also on our SOP,some thsd's hrs of line flying and also answer given to me by some ATC friends....
But,I'll check the books,and maybe I'll find a definite answer for you,page and paragraph....
I also want to find this,cause I'm surprised that there are pilots who apply drift correction when instructed to maintain HEADING ,thus not knowing or not making any difference between Heading and Track (check also definitions for these two notions..)

Alexban.

It may well be a good idea to check with a current Area or Approach controller. As I said, it's a long time since I was at school.

You are exactly right if you are given a specific heading to fly that heading. If you are given a RADAR heading, as I remember it, the controller expects to see your paint parallel with the PPI cursor on that heading. He can't give you safe track separation if you don't correct for drift. Fine if your all on the same compass heading and TAS.

I'll be interested now to know if I have remembered it wrong.

You have.

RADAR heading is poor phraseology held onto by some Controllers. You should either be told "Fly Heading..........." in which case ATC doesn't know your heading, but if you turn to what they say they will adjust you by the phrase "Turn left / right heading....................." (used when they do know what heading you are on).

RADAR heading doesn't exist.

Going back to the original question - it's this confusion that caused the UK to abandon "Runway heading" a couple of years back, to be replaced with "Straight ahead" - a lot simpler as it means continue out on the runway track, adhering to the track of the extended centreline.

Am I a cynic
On the subject of PANS-OPS doc 8168 anyone have a link for it on a pdf file for easy searching?

Don't know if you can get a free copy.

8168 (large chunks also reproduced in Jepp Text manual) does not define 'runway heading' as a clearance - possibly because it doesn't really exist!

It does however state (referring to all 'procedures' in PANS OPS)

"All procedures depict tracks. Pilots should attempt to maintain the track by applying corrections to heading for known wind."

PROCEDURES FOR AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS (PANS-OPS, DOC 8168)

The following is taken from ICAO Doc 444 ‘Air Traffic Management’
Chap 12-9
“a) [AFTER DEPARTURE] TURN RIGHT (or LEFT) HEADING (three digits) (or CONTINUE RUNWAY HEADING) (or TRACK EXTENDED CENTRE LINE) TO (level or significant point) [(other instructions as required)];”

Chap 12-17
... heading to be followed “CONTINUE RUNWAY HEADING (instructions);
... when a specific track is to be followed TRACK EXTENDED CENTRE LINE (instructions);”
From this, ‘Heading’ means fly heading i.e. aircraft reference.
‘Straight Ahead’ appears to be a corruption of “Track Extended Centerline”, thus it means fly track.

If you do not know the difference between heading and track then you should not be flying.

I'm amazed at some of the stuff in this thread...

If an air traffic controller instructs a pilot to fly a heading, he expects the pilot to use his compass or gyro (or whatever) and NOT - DEFINITELY NOT - to take into account the wind effect. Radar controllers are perfectly capable of adjusting the headings they issue to take account of the wind. Golf Bravo Zulu... don't know where you've been but in 31 years I never once used the cursor on a PPI. Everything came out of my head, as it does with most controllers.

When I worked in Heathrow Tower and wanted to take someone off a SID for separation I would give them a heading to fly instead of "straight ahead", or "runway heading". I had taken account of the wind and knew pretty well where the aircraft would go. Maybe they don't teach ATCOs basic navigation skills nowadays?

safetypee
Just to clarify, it isn't in Pans Ops 8168. It just refers to ICAO doc 444. (Everyone's got a copy of that in their bag then!)
I don't think anyone is confused between heading and track, it's just that some places seem to expect different things and clarification was sought at the start of the thread.
Where's RADAR HEADING defined then?:)

Not sure if this helps the debate but just in case:

ICAO DOC 9643 (copy infront of me) is the document that describes the applicable separations during multiple runway operations and was the basis for the recent design work for Mixed-mode and Runway Three at Heathrow; this document always refers to track when describing separation requirements. For example, during parallel runway ops. the missed approach track from one runway must diverge by 30 degrees or more from the initial departure track from a parallel runway.

Therefore, I would say where instructions are being given to ensure separation it seems probable that heading should never come into it - we should always be dealing in track (unless, of course, one issues a heading that allows for the drift).

Point 4

120.4 separation is assured if both planes operating on parallel rwy fly the same instructed procedure: heading or track and not a mix of those.
I'm amazed to see that are pilots ,or even ATC guys,who confuse these two procedures.

It is simple english combined with basic navigation.

If you are flying a heading, you will drift depending on the wind. With a crosswind heading and track are different.

When sitting on the threshold, you can be told 1 of 3 things;

1. Fly straight ahead. Look out your window down the extended runway centerline and have a think about what heading you are going to have to fly in order for the aircraft to proceed straight ahead. Hint - in a crosswind it will not be the same as the runway heading.

2. Fly Runway Heading. Look at the chart and it will tell you what the runway heading is. Fly that heading. Simple. Since one is expected to keep the heading within 5deg and the runway number will be 5 deg or less from the actual heading, then either will do the same job but the actual heading is the most accurate.

3. Track Runway Centerline. Use basic navigation to ensure that the heading you fly causes the aircraft to track along the extended runway centerline. Gain simple.

PANS-OPS Part 1 is very clear that pilots should fly tracks when they are specified making an appropriate allowance for the wind but when being radar vectored no allowance for wind is made by the pilot.

It is also very clear that pilots should not accept radar vectors until clear of obstacles. To me that means that give a clearance of fly runway heading or fly xxx heading after departure, I will track the runway centerline until the minimum turn height for that aerodrome and then fly the assigned heading. That prevents my aircraft from drifting into close-in obstacles which can be a problem during strong crosswinds with a slow aircraft and lift-off well before the departure end of the runway.

Regards,

DFC

Alexban

I was referring to the technical requirement for the establishment of ATC procedures under ICAO. You are of course quite right, as long as they both fly either track or heading, separation should be maintained.

A departure will typically be following a SID and therefore flying a track. In order to separate a simultaneous go-around from an adjacent runway, it too should be issued a track (or a heading that accounts for the drift).

No confusion - if you are trying to separate against established procedures, track will always work, heading might not unless drift is allowed for.

I was once involved in an incident where a B767 was launched 1 minute behind a Concorde off 09R at Heathrow. The book says the Tower can only use one minute if both aircraft follow the same track. I had issued 240degree headings to both of them and did not expect to get them one mintue apart. Of course, the B767 cut the corner and they met just south of Heathrow, same level. Track is safest.

Point 4