"Proceed on-course" Discrepancy?

[Everskyward]

I understand that we're discussing RNAV routes. I also see that Velocity173 said, "Should be clearing you direct to the next waypoint." There are times a controller may need you back on your original RNAV course. Velocity173 is a controller and he appears to agree with me.

Not according to what he wrote.

This. Which is also in line with 5-6-2 of the .65.

If you're RNAV and on a vector then the controller should be clearing you direct to the next waypoint. "Proceed on course" is vague in my opinion. Whenever I vectored an RNAV off a direct route I always used "Piedmont 3196, turn right / left, when able proceed direct XYZ." If I had taken them significantly off a course between the two fixes, then I'd amend them present position direct "XYZ." Or, simply get on the landline and get approval from the next facility. Never expected a pilot to return to a previous course that I took them off.

Here is the whole post.

Until Velocity 173 responds I'm not going to argue with you.

 

[dtuuri]

Not according to what he wrote.

Until Velocity 173 responds I'm not going to argue with you.

That'll be a first.

dtuuri

 

[peerlesscowboy]

So, assuming "proceed on course" means intercept the original course of ABC --D-> XYZ (not pp direct XYZ nor return pp direct to ABC) without a heading specified to intercept what angle from 90* to just barely converging would be expected or does it really matter?

 

[poadeleted20]

So, assuming "proceed on course" means intercept the original course of ABC --D-> XYZ (not pp direct XYZ nor return pp direct to ABC) without a heading specified to intercept what angle from 90* to just barely converging would be expected or does it really matter?

If you aren't absolutely sure, ask the controller. Ref: 14 CFR 91.123(a).

 

[Velocity173]

I understand that we're discussing RNAV routes. I also see that Velocity173 said, "Should be clearing you direct to the next waypoint." There are times a controller may need you back on your original RNAV course. Velocity173 is a controller and he appears to agree with me.

dtuuri

Was a controller. The problem with resume own navigation is it doesn't necessarily mean go back to your previous course either. At least by the PCG definition it doesn't. Just means your off the vector and can now navigate own your own. Another problem with resume own navigation, is that some pilots believe it deletes any altitude restriction as well. While vertical Nav is a form of Nav, canceling an altitude restriction isn't part of the definition of "resume own navigation." Generally I used it was a vector to an airway. "N12345, turn left heading 210, intercept V437 and resume own navigation." Used it a bunch for the overhead. Flight is on a vector in the general direction of the initial. Vector is no longer needed; "Blade11, resume own navigation to the initial runway 23." In that case, I really didn't care if they zig zagged or whatever. All potential conflicts were resolved prior to letting them loose.

So, to get back to the OP's original discussion. I don't like proceed on course or even a resume own navigation with no modifier. I can understand why proceed on course or resume own navigation could be interpreted either way. That's why I always used "when able proceed direct XYZ." That takes away all confusion. Only thing I had to worry about is coordinating with the adjacent facility when the aircraft it showing up at hand off a point that doesn't match their flight plan. We had LOAs that covered that sort of thing as well.

Here's the thing, for those that believe proceed on course means to go back to your original course, what is the standard on how to get back there. Must turn direct to a 90 degree intercept? Must go back to the point where you were vectored off course? Must intercept within x distance from the next waypoint?

 

[roncachamp]

I agree. But still, it's one of those things that bugs me that nobody really seems to know...

You're essentially asking, "Where is nonstandard phraseology defined?" It's not. That's pretty much what makes it nonstandard.

 

[dtuuri]

Here's the thing, for those that believe proceed on course means to go back to your original course, what is the standard on how to get back there. Must turn direct to a 90 degree intercept? Must go back to the point where you were vectored off course? Must intercept within x distance from the next waypoint?

It's pretty obvious to me that after being asked what the heading would be to the next fix, "Proceed on course" means to go there. I don't think you'd disagree with that.

When told to "Resume your own navigation," it's clear to me that means ATC is done interrupting my flight and I can get back to the business at hand, which would be following my last assigned route. I don't need nor want some arbitrary interception angle because it depends on the wind. It means to me the controller is discontinuing responsibility for my terrain protection--I'm on my own now. If I feel, say, 90° to the route is what it takes to be safe, it's my responsibility to fly it. I think the pilot in you would agree with that, and the controller in you would have been more specific if you didn't want me to do that.

So, bottom line, I still think you agree with me.

dtuuri

 

[Velocity173]

It's pretty obvious to me that after being asked what the heading would be to the next fix, "Proceed on course" means to go there. I don't think you'd disagree with that.

When told to "Resume your own navigation," it's clear to me that means ATC is done interrupting my flight and I can get back to the business at hand, which would be following my last assigned route. I don't need nor want some arbitrary interception angle because it depends on the wind. It means to me the controller is discontinuing resposibility for my terrain protection--I'm on my own now. If I feel, say, 90° to the route is what it takes to be safe, it's my responsibility to fly it. I think the pilot in you would agree with that, and the controller in you would have been more specific if you didn't want me to do that.

So, bottom line, I still think you agree with me.

dtuuri

I'd say I agree with you that resume own navigation could mean going back to your original course. I'd also say that there isn't a controller around that would care if you went direct your next waypoint either. You've been taken off your RNAV route, the controller is required to reclear you to the next waypoint. I assure you, with "resume own navigation to UVXYZ." The controller doesn't care if you proceed direct, intercept 10 miles out or .1 miles out from UVXYZ. They just want you heading that way.

Like Mark said, direct the next fix you eliminate confusion. Non standard phraseology like proceed on course is ambiguous. What course? My present course to the next waypoint or my original course to the next waypoint?

 

[dtuuri]

Non standard phraseology like proceed on course is ambiguous.

From Order 7110.65V for aircraft departing the DC SFRA:

PHRASEOLOGY-
(ACID) TRANSPONDER OBSERVED PROCEED ON COURSE/AS REQUESTED; REMAIN OUTSIDE (class) AIRSPACE.​

Seems like you wouldn't want just any old ambiguous terminology around that place, but there it is.

EDIT: "Proceed on course" is probably the way most departure procedures end. Today's pilots are confused by the meaning?

dtuuri

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Better yet, ask the controller with whom you are speaking. While the answer you get may not be the same every time in every place with every controller, it will be the answer which keeps you out of trouble on that day in that place with that controller.

I agree with this because just saying "proceed on course" is kinda non-standard ATC phraseology. My guess is you have flown with pilots out of the same airport that have done both. Since you are asking the question I guess no ATC has given you any crap about doing it either way. I'd say do whatever you want. I asked my brother who is a Center controller this scenario, and he would expect you to go to the next waypoint. But he won't just say "proceed on course," he would say, "proceed direct to XYZ intersection"

 

[HighFlyingA380]

Yeah, flying' with different pilots out of the same airport with the same controllers. And we'll get both a "direct [next fix]" as well as a "proceed on course' after a departure heading/vector. Since they're using both, I can only assume they have different meanings.

 

[Velocity173]

From Order 7110.65V for aircraft departing the DC SFRA:

PHRASEOLOGY-
(ACID) TRANSPONDER OBSERVED PROCEED ON COURSE/AS REQUESTED; REMAIN OUTSIDE (class) AIRSPACE.​

Seems like you wouldn't want just any old ambiguous terminology around that place, but there it is.

EDIT: "Proceed on course" is probably the way most departure procedures end. Today's pilots are confused by the meaning?

dtuuri

We're not talking about an aircraft leaving the SFRA. We're talking about an aircraft being vectored off an RNAV route and then being told to "proceed on course." That phraseology isn't used in the .65 in that example. I can understand the OP wanting clarification on "proceed on course" in his example. It's minutia
but still worth looking into.

Personally I'd just call the facility and ask "when you tell me to proceed on course, do you want me to go direct or intercept my course line somewhere in between?"

 

[dtuuri]

Personally I'd just call the facility and ask "when you tell me to proceed on course, do you want me to go direct or intercept my course line somewhere in between?"

No need to call. We both agree "that there isn't a controller around that would care if you went direct" (your words) because "It means to me the controller is discontinuing responsibility for my terrain protection--I'm on my own now," (my words). Same thing.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

Seems to me any question of what is meant could be met by a simple readback as a rough equivalent of a query and satisfy the problem of pilots who think asking ATC is some kind of burden or sign of lack of skill.

ATC: N34X. Proceed on course.
34X: Proceeding direct Podunk. 34X.

 

[dtuuri]

Seems to me any question of what is meant could be met by a simple readback as a rough equivalent of a query and satisfy the problem of pilots who think asking ATC is some kind of burden or sign of lack of skill.

ATC: N34X. Proceed on course.
34X: Proceeding direct Podunk. 34X.

Certainly, Mark. But that wasn't the question asked by the OP. A readback like you suggest should only be used in the event you mean to go direct. Should you also have to say if you're reintercepting the course? I would hope not. I would hope that not saying any such thing doesn't imply the pilot is covering for a lack of skill, when it's the one who feels the need to gild the lily who's actually lacking in understanding.

dtuuri

 

[JHW]

Well then that settles it. Even if you're equipped /G you're expected to join your original route.

In that scenario I'd probably try to join the original route at a point 0.1NM this side of the cleared-to waypoint.

 

[Palmpilot]

"On course" is defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, but the definition doesn't seem applicable to this situation.

It's situations like this that make me appreciate having a terrain database on the moving map!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Certainly, Mark. But that wasn't the question asked by the OP. A readback like you suggest should only be used in the event you mean to go direct. Should you also have to say if you're reintercepting the course? I would hope not.

Why not? The consensus seems to be that "proceed on course" is not the clearest of instructions, with no precise definition of what is meant, particularly in the context of off-course vectoring. Nothing in the FAR, AIM, PCG, Controller Bible, Instrument Procedures Handbook, or any other FAA publication tells us.

If that's the case, my point is simple: What is the big deal with responding with what you understand the instruction to mean or what you plan to do to comply instead of simply parroting a bunch of words you are not sure you understand? Isn't that the whole reason behind a readback, indeed any communication with ATC - to ensure you and ATC are on the same page?

 

[poadeleted20]

I use readbacks like that all the time when I'm not sure of what the controller really wants me to do, and when you analyze the possible conversations, it saves a lot of time. For example, when I'm arriving home at KSBY and I'm cleared direct HYDRS from the northwest and then "cleared RNAV 14 approach", and I'm pretty sure they really don't want me to do the course reversal from that position, I'll read back, "Tiger 22RL, confirm cleared straight in RNAV 14 approach", to which they need only say, "22RL, roger cleared straight in". It always seem work better if I do it that way rather than saying, "Approach, do you want me to do the course reversal at HYDRS or can I have the approach straight in from there?" and then have them ask, "22RL, do you want to do the course reversal?", etc. Likewise, when heading to Martinsburg WV on a nice VMC day and they say "cleared direct Martinsburg", I'll read back "Confirm direct Martinsburg Airport", so we're all agreed I'm going straight to the Martinsburg Airport, not to the Martinsburg VOR about eight miles east of the airport. Just seems to save bandwidth and achieve better communication more efficiently.

 

[dtuuri]

The consensus seems to be that "proceed on course" is not the clearest of instructions, with no precise definition of what is meant, particularly in the context of off-course vectoring. Nothing in the FAR, AIM, PCG, Controller Bible, Instrument Procedures Handbook, or any other FAA publication tells us.

Back in the 1990s I spent two years persistently writing letters to the FAA asking for an explanation of the implications of "Proceed on course" with respect to IFR departure procedures vs. obstacle protection. The people that work for the FAA always, ALWAYS, pass the buck. "Not my job Chico, you need to ask <name of random department>." Finally, I was able to secure some new descriptive language in the AIM that explained departure procedures more thoroughly. They would not define "proceed on course", apparently because it's self-evident after the AIM changes.

I agree.

A random RNAV route is as wide as an airway, eight nm. "On course" means established on the centerline. "Proceed" means "continue a course of action" in plain language. When a radar vector takes you off-course and then ATC tells you to continue the course (proceed) it means via the centerline. If the "consensus" doesn't understand that... well, let's not go there. If ATC is specifically asking for your heading, present position to a fix, then immediately says "proceed on course" it's obviously meant to go present position to the fix they just asked about and the assigned altitude will meet obstruction clearance for a random RNAV route. Since that would be a different course than before, you're being re-cleared to the fix in accordance with 7110.65.

What is the big deal with responding with what you understand the instruction to mean or what you plan to do to comply instead of simply parroting a bunch of words you are not sure you understand? Isn't that the whole reason behind a readback, indeed any communication with ATC - to ensure you and ATC are on the same page?

Of course you want to be on the same page. My disappointment stems from the fact this should already be understood. It doesn't say much for the "consensus", IMO, nor their trainers.

dtuuri

 

[Velocity173]

No need to call. We both agree "that there isn't a controller around that would care if you went direct" (your words) because "It means to me the controller is discontinuing responsibility for my terrain protection--I'm on my own now," (my words). Same thing.

dtuuri

Just because you're off your vector doesn't discontinue safety alerts if you're below the MIA for that area. Even in the Mooney example. Salt Lake tried to get the guy to climb but the aircraft wasn't capable.

 

[Speed]

Real world example... Deviating around t-storms, ATC wanted us direct to a fix when able. We couldn't get to the fix due to the t-storm being too close, and the next instruction was "on course when able". Our 'course' was a series of jet airways, no directs. Airways naturally have various intermediate fixes... Quick cockpit discussion revolving around - When cleared 'on course', do you go to at VOR on the airway? A fix on the airway? (Obviously this could have been easily cleared up by asking but nooo!) Captain decided to take a 40 degree right turn or so to intercept the jet route, and maybe 30 seconds later we got a butt-chewing from ATC for not going direct to the next upline VOR (which would have skipped several intermediate fixes). My response was if you wanted us direct to the VOR why didn't you just say that. Didn't go over very well, Captain had to call after we landed. So if in doubt, ask!

 

[Velocity173]

Controller should have said "When able, rejoin Jay..." Or, if they wanted you direct the VOR "when able, proceed direct XYZ VOR."

Just another example of "proceed on course" being vague in it's meaning.

 

[dtuuri]

Just another example of "proceed on course" being vague in it's meaning.

Another example of poor controller understanding. They should read their Bulletins:

Do not make the mistake of assuming what the aircraft will do as did a luckless controller recently. An aircraft on a westbound heading had been given the go-ahead to deviate north of course and proceed on course when able. The aircraft had moved north of its course and had been on a northwesterly heading for a while and the controller assumed that the aircraft would continue that course. The controller issued a descent clearance to an eastbound aircraft whose course would bring it eastbound 7 miles south of the deviating aircraft's present course. Naturally, the northwesterly aircraft chose an inopportune moment to turn south to proceed on its original course and separation was lost.
​

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atbarc/02-4.htm

Near the bottom of the page under "Diverting..."

dtuuri

 

[MarkZ]

Hang on a second.

I thought the OP was talking about departing an airport and being told to proceed on course after departure. How does that equate to an en-route weather deviation? In the former instance, we don't know if there was a non-radar departure route to rejoin or if radar vectors were used. In the latter, the aircraft was already established on a course and deviated from that course due to weather. Due to the ambiguous phraseology, the pilot did what he thought was correct, and turned to his original course.

My military colleague was correct. It's technique. Another earlier user posted words of wisdom as well: if there is a question or doubt regarding a clearance, ASK.

 

[dtuuri]

I thought the OP was talking about departing an airport and being told to proceed on course after departure.

Correct.

How does that equate to an en-route weather deviation?

They're similar.

In the former instance, we don't know if there was a non-radar departure route to rejoin or if radar vectors were used.

There's always a route. It's a block on the flight plan and often gets amended by ATC. The OP began the flight on the route and was taken off by a heading then released from the heading.

In the latter, the aircraft was already established on a course and deviated from that course due to weather.

Same as the former, but for other reasons.

Due to the ambiguous phraseology, the pilot did what he thought was correct, and turned to his original course.

Absolutely correct, and not in the least bit ambiguous. Look, if what the pilot did was wrong, why would the Bulletin fault the controller?

dtuuri

 

[HighFlyingA380]

Hang on a second.

I thought the OP was talking about departing an airport and being told to proceed on course after departure...

Yup. The exact scenario I'm thinking of would be something like this:
Twr: "ABC123, cleared for takeoff 36, maintain 5,000, heading 320."
Then switched to departure on that heading.
Departure: "ABC123, upon reaching 2,000 proceeded on corse, maintain 9,000."

Again, most will hit direct to to take us to our first fix, while some will want to reintercept the GPS course drawn between the departure airport and that fix.

 

[MarkZ]

Yup. The exact scenario I'm thinking of would be something like this:

Twr: "ABC123, cleared for takeoff 36, maintain 5,000, heading 320."

Then switched to departure on that heading.

Departure: "ABC123, upon reaching 2,000 proceeded on corse, maintain 9,000."



Again, most will hit direct to to take us to our first fix, while some will want to reintercept the GPS course drawn between the departure airport and that fix.

What was your IFR clearance? Was it "radar vectors XXX" or simply "as filed"?

If it was the former, go direct. The latter, it gets trickier. I personally, would still go direct. It seems to me having you depart on a vector, then allowing pilot navigation leaving a low altitude could mean that the controller wanted to ensure you are above his or her MVA.

 

[dtuuri]

It seems to me having you depart on a vector, then allowing pilot navigation leaving a low altitude could mean that the controller wanted to ensure you are above his or her MVA.

Question: Couldn't the same situation also mean the DP was incorporated in the clearance, as an SOP, in a non-radar area? When navigating/departing within a non-radar area there's a 25 nm limit to attain MEA/MIA--no obstruction evaluation beyond that. Navigating "direct" to the next fix could be hazardous to your health unless the route's been scrutinized.

dtuuri

 

[HighFlyingA380]

What was your IFR clearance? Was it "radar vectors XXX" or simply "as filed"?

If it was the former, go direct. The latter, it gets trickier. I personally, would still go direct. It seems to me having you depart on a vector, then allowing pilot navigation leaving a low altitude could mean that the controller wanted to ensure you are above his or her MVA.

98% of the time it's "as filed." (PNT.TRICH)

Not sure it's for the MV; From how we're cleared for arrivals, it's never below 3,000. I guessing it's that on course (direct) PNT from that point after 2,000 ensures the minimum 200'/nm to clear those Caravan skewers north of DEC.