Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Change to my Frequency...' started by azpilot, Mar 25, 2017.
Of course not. Quite the contrary. I find nothing that prohibits it.
Pointing out there is an Order guiding the conduct of ATC ("regulatory" tends to be a nonsense term folks toss around indiscriminately depending on what they like or don't like) hardly means I don't support the use of plain English. Of course, if you want to argue with someone who agrees with your bottom line, I guess you can find a way.
5−8−2. INITIAL HEADING
a. Before departure, assign the initial heading to be
flown if a departing aircraft is to be vectored
immediately after takeoff.
FLY RUNWAY HEADING.
TURN LEFT/RIGHT, HEADING (degrees).
.....is to be vectored.....
It is not a Radar vector. Yet
I quoted the AIM paragraph regarding tower-assigned vectors in a prior paragraph; I didn't invent the concern.
Chapter 5 is the radar chapter. Tower controllers at facilities that lack radar certifications won't be referring to it.
Yeah. Not on their own. But if the facility responsible for IFR operations says give him "[runway, or a number] heading" Tower is going to give it to the pilot. As far as the VFR stuff goes, which is where this thread started out with "straight out" you have a point. The problem is sometimes controllers say "runway heading" when they really mean straight out. Until ATC gets consistent across the board, which probably ain't never gonna happen, sometimes you just have to apply the logic check
I got another "fly straight out, I'll call your base turn" yesterday. Whooo! Hehehe.
(It's like a little thing I can chuckle about now whenever I hear it knowing *someone* on PoA will have a hissy that it's not standard phraseology.)
I'd say in that case "extend downwind, I'll call your base" would be clearer.
The "straight out" thing is ambiguous. Like myself, there are those who believe it is a track, while others believe it's a runway heading.
I agree with Harold R, that there are VFR towers that have a restriction of issuing "fly runway heading" because of radar vector implications. Even that's gray though. It could be considered a departure instruction without using radar for navigation. Even "fly runway heading" in a radar environment doesn't technically become a vector until radar is established.
Personally, I'm not big on non standard phraseology but it sometimes has its place. I believe we used "depart straight ahead" when I worked overseas. To me, that would at least be a little more standard for flying a track. In the OP's case, if the controller has no other recourse because of lack of vector assignment, then I can understand "straight out." Would be nice to be a P/CG addition in the future to resolve confusion.
Technically it would be the upwind, but I get what you're saying.
"Fly upwind, I'll call your turn."
Is about the closest I can find to standard phraseology.
And we agree violently that an update to PCG to add "straight-out" and define it would be spiffy, but it'll take years, even if they start now... haha.
Not for certian here, but, I would think that "fly straight out", or "fly runway heading", would indicate the desired track, not nessisarily the compass heading. So, If you have to fly 020, in order to track 027, then do so.
Certainly not runway heading. Not in the US anyway. Runway heading means just that.
Of course this topic is slightly different than "runway heading".
"Fly Straight Out" is also commonly used at Falcon(FFZ). Can't say I ever put much thought into it as the controller's intentions seemed clear.
The other day, I was asked to fly "upwind" on departure which did confuse me. By odd coincidence a couple days later an article appeared on Airfactsjournal dot com pointing out that terminology is not correct if the controller wants you to continue on runway heading(or straight out) after take off as "Upwind" is formally defined as a path parallel to the runway but on the opposite side and direction as downwind.
I don't have a great answer for you, but what's the difference if they say continue on the downwind????
Best as I can tell, there isn't any way to get into the upwind leg from the takeoff run without some 90 degree turns(which I don't believe was the towers intention)
It is apparent that there is non standard terminology commonly in use and re-affirms the need to question/clarify if there is a doubt.
Well that's a new spin on it.....
ETA: Seriously... editing for your sake... please look again at your first sentence, then delete it.
Well, no. "Fly runway heading" means the compass heading. You do NOT correct for wind drift.
I will say that I would *expect* that "fly straight out" means to fly the track, but I wouldn't assume it. I remember getting "fly straight out" a few times, usually in conjunction with "I'll call your turn". Obviously in that context it means to extend your upwind leg and don't turn crosswind until given the instruction to do so. If there was a parallel runway and the wind would have carried me close to it, I would have corrected for it while on the upwind, just as if the instruction hadn't been given. But that was long ago, before I'd realized that "fly straight out" was nonstandard phraseology. Today if I was given that instruction, particularly if it was without "I'll call your turn", and if it would make a difference (i.e., significant crosswind), I'd ask the controller for clarification.
I get fly straight out at Deer Valley all the time
I imagine that experienced controllers are aware that visual navigation does not guarantee a precise ground track when a "fly straight out" instruction is given.
Off Topic: 11 years ago when I was training and getting the Class C requirements knocked out in the powerful 152 with high DA, this was a common transmission from tower: "Cleared takeoff RWY 26R, remain east of 22 runway/taxiway". That's a very early crosswind turn, and in the 152 we couldn't make pattern altitude due to the short laps ... was fun though.
Not sure what the edit request refers to in the response to my earlier post.
4.3.1 of the AIM makes it pretty clear that the upwind leg relates to the downwind leg in the same way base leg relates to the crosswind leg: opposite direction on opposite sides/ends of the runway.
The upwind leg is not centered over the runway.
The pair that are centered and aligned with the runway is the final and the departure leg.
Yeah, the epilogue to this article (which the writer has since posted) is that the FAA is apparently going to revise the P/CG and the AIM to reflect the fact that the upwind and the departure leg are the same thing.
The upwind leg can be parallel to the runway in cases like go-arounds, but in terms of a departing aircraft that is instructed to "Continue upwind," the pilot is not expected to turn. A 90-degree turn would constitute a crosswind leg, so the opinion that a 90-degree turn would be necessary to "continue upwind" after departing the runway is absolutely ludicrous. If you consider the "why" behind an instruction to "continue upwind" -- usually for spacing from traffic already on crosswind, or other traffic in the pattern -- it becomes even more so.
The "Epilogue letter" states that "the departure leg and upwind leg were considered to be virtually the same, though clearly they are not" and "we will initiate an update to correct any inconsistencies" and "align the affected documents" so it is not clear exactly what the update will be. They may make it clear that the two are two different things or they may state that they are interchangeable. It would seem odd that they would do the latter given "Fly runway heading" already exists as "the official nomenclature".
And it certainly does not make sense that they intend for one to turn to enter an upwind leg as defined by the AIM when the tower states "continue upwind" after takeoff which brings us back to the crux of this thread; there is always "non standard" terminology in use(and it appears to vary regionally) so the intention behind the instruction needs to be clear or it needs to be clarified.
On the contrary, they'd be quite ticked around here if one were to drift over the parallel runway after such a request in a crosswind.
Good point, but what about airports that don't have a parallel runway?
If you tried it at PAO or SQL with a crosswind from the bayside, you'd get a noise abatement complaint.
My flight path on departure from those airports is normally determined by the published noise abatement procedures, not a "fly straight out" instruction from the tower.
My only point is that we seem to be spending a lot of time splitting hairs about what an undefined instruction means. Things like noise abatement procedures, charted airspace restrictions, and parallel runways are a different matter, because the boundaries of where you shouldn't fly are clearly defined.
FYI, the "straight out" clearance is in print in the chart supplement, for KSFO noise abatement procedures. In that context, it's obviously describing a ground track.
It's on pp. 406 et seq.
Hahaha. Our noise abatement procedure requires a turn. If you get "fly straight out" northbound, the Tower is essentially telling you to ignore the procedure. LOL.
"Fly straight out" means exactly what it says in English. It's not standard phraseology, but that doesn't mean it's "undefined". Unless you're going for "undefined in the PCG". It's plenty well defined in Merriam-Webster. Ha.
I covered this in my original assessment ^^^ way up there ^^^.
Getting it added to the PCG and 7110 would probably take forever and nobody's interested, but it's used often enough at different facilities that it probably should be in there. Just for consistency.
We've covered here also already that it's not the same command as "fly runway heading" which is standard phraseology and in the PCG.
This is what R&W would call a "mental masturbation" thread.
I meant not defined by the FAA (unless there's a definition that hasn't been quoted). The Merriam-Webster definition doesn't seem applicable, and the common understanding of the phrase doesn't seem to have been sufficient to prevent a hundred posts about how it should be executed.
I don't think the hundred posts are any indication of how well people understand the phrase when they hear it in an airplane. Ha. Mostly just an indication of standard online behavior. We're just here entertaining ourselves between flights. LOL.
I'm not saying that there's a lack of understanding; what I saw in those hundred posts was a lack of agreement.
LOL. Yep. Pilots. Go figure.
So given that instruction, you should keep runway heading pegged on your compass, while flying a track that can put you into conflict with traffic on downwind, or cause noise abatement issues?
Controllers are well aware of what the wind will do. Runway heading means just that. "Runway heading pegged on the compass."
Pesonally I think "departure" should mean essentially the same as fly runway heading, with "departure" being "within the confines of the pattern".
That leaves "upwind" meaning the opposite direction of downwind parallel to the runway and in the pattern.
But then I don't make the rules.
Yes. The definition explicitly states that no drift correction is applied. ATC is aware of the resulting track.
...yup! That's why you don't have controllers at GA airports typically telling VFR traffic to "fly runway heading" as part of a traffic pattern operation. "Fly straight out" is the relevant substitute that alleviates the concerns you brought up.
First, it is inarguable that "fly straight out" is non-standard phraseology and is not specified in a thick FAA manual of full of standard phraseology. The requirement to have a pilot fly straight out does not rise to the level of NEEDING to resort to non-standard plain English phraseology to make the meaning clear since "fly runway heading", a standard phrase, would suffice. So there is no justification there.
Second, since a VFR tower launches into the airspace of either an approach facility or an enroute facility, it does so at the direction and with the permission of that facility and there are precise methods specified for doing this.
If the airspace into which the IFR flight is being launched is radar controlled AND the aircraft will be identified immediately after departure ( I said "identified" not told "radar contact" which comes after identification) then a heading may be specified BY THE RADAR CONTROLLER who controls the airspace. And if it will be specified then there is proper phraseology for that.
If the airspace into which the IFR flight is being launched is radar controlled AND the aircraft WILL NOT be immediately identified after departure AND a heading is necessary to be flown immediately after departure then the phraseology will be...
"WHEN ENTERING CONTROLLED AIRSPACE (instruction), FLY HEADING (degrees) UNTIL REACHING (altitude, point, or fix) BEFORE
PROCEEDING ON COURSE."
If the airspace is not radar controlled or the aircraft will have to depart via non-radar procedures then the VFR tower will give some non-radar-ish instruction (again, by the direction of the controlling facility) to depart using non-radar routing, ie, "after departure proceed direct ALPHA VOR then proceed on course, cleared for takeoff".
Or, the VFR tower will instruct the aircraft to proceed on course into a radar environment.
There is really only these four possibilities and the four standard phraseological methods.
Regarding VFR towers and IFR departures...they do NOTHING without the consent and direction of the controller who controls the airspace into which they are launching the aircraft either directly or by letter of agreement with the radar facility. Really the only IFR separation responsibility given to a VFR tower (FAA as opposed to contract) is the 2 increasing to 3 departure rule and the 15 degree (radar) or two or three non-radar departure rules. And even those are ALLOWED by permission by the facility controlling the airspace into which the aircraft are being launced by LOA. So there will be no freelance phraseology necessary to deal with IFR aircraft.
VFR departures that will receive radar service are treated the same, generally, and with the consent and direction of the radar facility into which the plane is being launched.
VFR departures that will not receive radar service may be handled at the discretion of the tower but, still, by the use of standard phraseology and .65 methods. There is no justification or excuse or legal necessity to be sloppy in those circumstances.
All controllers as well as pilots pick up bad habits. A controller picks up some non-standard way of saying something because it sounds cool or folksy or "I'm good enough I don't need to follow the rules" mentality. Then he teaches that to his trainee who teaches his trainee who teaches his trainee. Then when these controllers move to other facilities they infect that facility with the poor example and before long now the virus has spread to other facilities and regions and new trainees.
This is why, we as instructors need to teach the correct FAA way of doing things in order to stop the mutations from continuing generationally, whether we teach air traffic control or piloting. We must carefully differentiate between teaching standard basics and "our way" of doing things. I always make a point of making sure that when I teach MY way about something that they understand that it is MY method or interpretation.
One thing I have learned in almost 40 years of doing this is that almost nothing requires "interpretation", which is usually a vehicle used to defend one's personal taste or agenda. Most of the rules are clear and understandable if one studies the rule.