Fly straight out

Palmpilot said:
I suppose in the real world, saying wilco instead of roger probably doesn't have much practical effect
Click to expand...

In the current NATO phonetic alphabet R is Romeo. But before the NATO phonetics, R was Roger which meant "Received" (you heard the radio transmission clearly).
WILCO is "Will Comply" (you heard the transmission and will do as instructed).
 
Last edited:
bobmrg said:
The controller is expecting you to know and understand the P/CG...that's why the AIM and 7110.65 contain identical glossaries.

Bob
Click to expand...
Please point out where in the P/CG the terminology "fly straight out" is mentioned or explained. I just got home and looked through it. "Straight in" is found there, but neither "straight out" nor "fly straight out" are, as far as I can tell.
 
citizen5000 said:
In the current NATO phonetic alphabet R is Romeo. But before the NATO phonetics, R was Roger which meant "Received" (you heard the radio transmission clearly).
WILCO is "Will Comply" (you heard the transmission and will do as instructed).
Click to expand...
That's more-or-less the point I was trying to make before getting tied up in the discussion about whether they have the same effect.
 
flyingron said:
I'm holding out for "talk like a pirate day" where I can answer all my communications with "Arrrr....."

For those who don't know, the etymology of "roger" is that it is the spoken version of the letter "R" which meant in morse code "received." The R turns into Roger in the old Able/Baker/Charlie... phonetic alphabet.
Click to expand...

Di-dah-dit. Di-dah-dit. Di-dah-dit... Dah-di-dah. :)
 
azure said:
Please point out where in the P/CG the terminology "fly straight out" is mentioned or explained. I just got home and looked through it. "Straight in" is found there, but neither "straight out" nor "fly straight out" are, as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

The only P/CG entry is for "Runway Heading." "Straight out" is not in the 7110.65 and should not have been used by the controller. My comment is based on the posts saying that the pilot did not know what the controller was expecting, not on the phraseology/

Bob
 
citizen5000 said:
In the current NATO phonetic alphabet R is Romeo. But before the NATO phonetics, R was Roger which meant "Received" (you heard the radio transmission clearly).
WILCO is "Will Comply" (you heard the transmission and will do as instructed).
Click to expand...

"Wilco" is not what puts muscle behind the instruction...the FAR provides that. A controller, for all intents and purposes, does not need "wilco", "roger" or any other particular word. What we need is an acknowledgement. THAT is what seals the deal. At that point the pilot WILL comply or else he will say " unable" or declare an emergency. That's why, although "wilco" may be more accurate as to definition controllers place no more interest in that word than any other word of acknowledgement, unless, by the non-standardness of the acknowledgement, the controller can not determine if the pilot fully understood the instruction. Thus enter correct phraseology.

That is why the FAA years ago accepted other words as acknowledgements...because everyone on the planet was saying non standard words.

The "Will comply" expansion of "wilco" matters little as it relates to compliance since the controller doesn't depend on your "agreeing" to comply. Again, the FARs ensure that you will comply the moment you acknowledge the instruction notwithstanding "unable" or a declared emergency.

tex
 
Last edited:
We hear "straight out" a lot at KDVT... with busy parallel runways. Sometimes they'll use "runway heading". Either way, I assume it means there may be traffic and they'll call my turn.
 
That's odd phraseology, but you're supposed to repeat ATC's instructions anyway, so....
 
CT4ME said:
We hear "straight out" a lot at KDVT... with busy parallel runways. Sometimes they'll use "runway heading". Either way, I assume it means there may be traffic and they'll call my turn.
Click to expand...

Call the tower, ask to speak to a quality control person, and ask where "straight out" can be found in the P/CG. My bet is that no one in a position to do anything about it is aware of this procedural oops.

Bob
 
"Fly runway heading" is a vector, and many towers are not permitted to provide vectors except to IFR aircraft when the overlying approach control authorizes it. This is why you'll hear a lot of towers (especially in DFW) saying things like "Proceed westbound" instead of "Fly heading 270." It is important to note that in the context of the OP's post, a vector would not be appropriate, as it would not account for wind aloft which could push the aircraft into the path of arriving traffic.

From the AIM (which is more relevant to us than the 7110.65):
"The local controller may provide pilots flying VFR with generalized instructions which will facilitate operations; e.g., “PROCEED SOUTHWESTBOUND, ENTER A RIGHT DOWNWIND RUNWAY THREE ZERO,” or provide a suggested heading to establish radar identification or as an advisory aid to navigation; e.g., “SUGGESTED HEADING TWO TWO ZERO, FOR RADAR IDENTIFICATION.” In both cases, the instructions are advisory aids to the pilot flying VFR and are not radar vectors. NOTE− Pilots have complete discretion regarding acceptance of the suggested headings or directions and have sole responsibility for seeing and avoiding other aircraft."

From the 7110.65:
"It is important that the pilot be aware of the fact that the directions or headings being provided are suggestions or are advisory in nature. This is to keep the pilot from being inadvertently misled into assuming that radar vectors (and other associated radar services) are being provided when, in fact, they are not."

If we can handle "Make straight-in Runway 34," which is an approved instruction, we should be able to handle "Fly straight out. Runway 34, cleared for takeoff." It simply means to continue on the upwind leg. It does not mean "fly runway heading."
 
It means you can never turn. I hope your landing runway is exactly lined up with you on departure. If not, you're screwed.
 
bobmrg said:
Call the tower, ask to speak to a quality control person, and ask where "straight out" can be found in the P/CG. My bet is that no one in a position to do anything about it is aware of this procedural oops.

Bob
Click to expand...
Heck of a procedural oops I heard many, many times.
 
Harold Rutila said:
"Fly runway heading" is a vector, and many towers are not permitted to provide vectors except to IFR aircraft when the overlying approach control authorizes it. This is why you'll hear a lot of towers (especially in DFW) saying things like "Proceed westbound" instead of "Fly heading 270." It is important to note that in the context of the OP's post, a vector would not be appropriate, as it would not account for wind aloft which could push the aircraft into the path of arriving traffic.

From the AIM (which is more relevant to us than the 7110.65):
"The local controller may provide pilots flying VFR with generalized instructions which will facilitate operations; e.g., “PROCEED SOUTHWESTBOUND, ENTER A RIGHT DOWNWIND RUNWAY THREE ZERO,” or provide a suggested heading to establish radar identification or as an advisory aid to navigation; e.g., “SUGGESTED HEADING TWO TWO ZERO, FOR RADAR IDENTIFICATION.” In both cases, the instructions are advisory aids to the pilot flying VFR and are not radar vectors. NOTE− Pilots have complete discretion regarding acceptance of the suggested headings or directions and have sole responsibility for seeing and avoiding other aircraft."

From the 7110.65:
"It is important that the pilot be aware of the fact that the directions or headings being provided are suggestions or are advisory in nature. This is to keep the pilot from being inadvertently misled into assuming that radar vectors (and other associated radar services) are being provided when, in fact, they are not."

If we can handle "Make straight-in Runway 34," which is an approved instruction, we should be able to handle "Fly straight out. Runway 34, cleared for takeoff." It simply means to continue on the upwind leg. It does not mean "fly runway heading."
Click to expand...
"Proceed Southwest!!!!????" How could anyone possibly know where to go?

And "straight out?" You're expecting us to understand Swahili?
:D

This isn't the only thread that makes me wonder how pilots get so into language technicality that we barely understand English anymore.
 
The point is not that "fly straight out" is not descriptive. It is. So is "go toward the lake and stay away from the 14 departure course". So is "Fly a little more downwind before turning a short approach". So is "fly toward Little Rock until getting close to V74 then resume own nav". And I can think of a thousand more.

That's not the point of any of this.

The point is that there is standard phraseology that will darn near cover just about anything that needs to get done. Pilots AND CONTROLLERS are bad about getting sloppy with phraseology and resorting to "folksy" language either through nonchalance or time reinforced bad habit. And the bad part about this is that it is self-perpetuating. Pilots hear controllers who hear pilots and we all tend to "talk the talk" by mimicking each other.

As was stated before, the very fact that we are debating about what was meant effectively makes the very important point that we should stick to standard phraseology which will work in 98% of the situations.

There are ten thousand counterfeits and only one real standard.

tex
 
Last edited:
bobmrg said:
The only P/CG entry is for "Runway Heading." "Straight out" is not in the 7110.65 and should not have been used by the controller. My comment is based on the posts saying that the pilot did not know what the controller was expecting, not on the phraseology/

Bob
Click to expand...
Well, the posts saying the pilot did not know what the controller was expecting (including mine) EXPLICITLY referred to "straight out" and not something that can be found in the AIM, so what was the point of telling me to read the AIM? :confused:

Seems to me telling the OP to query the controller (either at the time or by calling the facility) was exactly the right advice, and you seemed to agree below, so I just don't get the point of your reply to me.
 
Dave S. said:
The point is not that "fly straight out" is not descriptive. It is. So is "go toward the lake and stay away from the 14 departure course". So is "Fly a little more downwind before turning a short approach". So is "fly toward Little Rock until getting close to V74 then resume own nav". And I can think of a thousand more.

That's not the point of any of this.

The point is that there is standard phraseology that will darn near cover just about anything that needs to get done. Pilots AND CONTROLLERS are bad about getting sloppy with phraseology and resorting to "folksy" language either through nonchalance or time reinforced bad habit. And the bad part about this is that it is self-perpetuating. Pilots hear controllers who hear pilots and we all tend to "talk the talk" by mimicking each other.

As was stated before, the very fact that we are debating about what was meant effectively makes the very important point that we should stick to standard phraseology which will work in 98% of the situations.

There are ten thousand counterfeits and only one real standard.

tex
Click to expand...
Sorry. We have different points. The controller is not saying "fly runway heading." He just wants you to, um, err, uhhh, sorry, I can't find other words for "fly straight out." With all the really confusing non-standard language around, I can't get too bent out of shape over the use of plain simple English that a group of 5 years old playing at recess probably wouldn't have trouble understanding (and yes, I realize the word "English" doesn't appear anywhere in the ATC Handbook; go figure). Or "remain east of runway 17R" (OMG! Does he want me to fly to Europe?"). Or, for that matter, I'll call your base" (the phrase definitely doesn't appear, and "call" only refers to an aircraft call sign or notice of a pilot deviation.)

The common use by Tower personnel (using standard phraseology of course) of local geographic references that are not noted on the chart for position reports is a lot worse than that for a transient (that doesn't other me either; I'm a renegade into aviation anarchy)
 
Last edited:
"Fly Straight Out" is fly the runway heading. The FAA does not regulate radio comms phraseology. The AIM has a Pilot and Controller Glossary but the practice comes from pilot to pilot and pilot to controllers. The content consists of common phrases, etiquette, brevity and clarity.
 
Last edited:
citizen5000 said:
"Fly Straight Out" is fly the runway heading. The FAA does not regulate radio comms phraseology. The AIM has a Pilot and Controller Glossary but the practice comes from pilot to pilot and pilot to controllers. The content consists of common phrases, etiquette, brevity and clarity.
Click to expand...

The FAA does regulate phraseology for controllers though and "fly straight out" is not in it. What you have determined as runway heading, others on POA might interpret as a track, such as "straight-in." That's why it's important for ATC to use either the phraseology they are authorized to use, or use terms in the P/CG that both sides should be familiar with.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Heck of a procedural oops I heard many, many times.
Click to expand...

...but an oops nontheless. Back in the days when I was attending the annual controller's "Communicating for Safety" conventions there discussions about this kind of thing, so I know that there is an interest in conforming to the 7710.

Bob
 
Ravioli said:
I've noticed that what I say has something to do with what I hear.

Without the FF:
Me: BD666, ready for take off RW16 @alpha, East departure
Tower: 666, cleared for takeoff 16, right turnout approved.
Me: 666 cleared for takeoff 16
Click to expand...

Am guessing you meant LEFT turn for that eastbound departure off of 16 or RIGHT 270.;)

To the OP: We rarely get any "maintain runway heading" assignments from KELP ... mainly because westbound would put you into the mountain a few minutes later. I received it ONE time only from a new trainee on a calm wind day (don't want to be in the lee area in the downdrafts on that mountain). I have just enough power if it's not a high DA day to go straight over the top with a comfortable clearance ... received a vector just before the mountain and am guessing the background alarm was a terrain warning or low altitude alert.
 
AIM 4-2-1b:

"Since concise phraseology may not always be adequate, use whatever words are necessary to get your message across."
 
citizen5000 said:
"Fly Straight Out" is fly the runway heading. The FAA does not regulate radio comms phraseology. The AIM has a Pilot and Controller Glossary but the practice comes from pilot to pilot and pilot to controllers. The content consists of common phrases, etiquette, brevity and clarity.
Click to expand...
The FAA does indeed regulate phraseology for controllers: It's called FAA Order 7110.65W in the current revision. But even is is not quite as structured as prohibiting the use of English. As the FAA puts it, the purpose of the Order is:

This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations that are not covered by it.​
 
midlifeflyer said:
The FAA does indeed regulate phraseology for controllers: It's called FAA Order 7110.65W in the current revision. But even is is not quite as structured as prohibiting the use of English. As the FAA puts it, the purpose of the Order is:

This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations that are not covered by it.​
Click to expand...

This is an FAA Order that applies to ATC (employees of the FAA). It is not a regulatory item (a FAR or CFR). Did you find anywhere in this order directing ATC personnel not to use the phrase "fly straight out?"
 
Dave S. said:
The point is that there is standard phraseology that will darn near cover just about anything that needs to get done. Pilots AND CONTROLLERS are bad about getting sloppy with phraseology and resorting to "folksy" language either through nonchalance or time reinforced bad habit. And the bad part about this is that it is self-perpetuating. Pilots hear controllers who hear pilots and we all tend to "talk the talk" by mimicking each other.
Click to expand...
What would your recommendation be to the controller in this scenario in order to prevent the pilot from turning left or right after departure? I will note again that "Fly runway heading" is not an authorized that most towers can issue because the FAA considers it a radar vector. This has been explained to me by dozens of tower controllers.
 
Harold Rutila said:
What would your recommendation be to the controller in this scenario in order to prevent the pilot from turning left or right after departure? I will note again that "Fly runway heading" is not an authorized that most towers can issue because the FAA considers it a radar vector. This has been explained to me by dozens of tower controllers.
Click to expand...
Why can't most towers issue " runway heading"? I get that very often from towers. Most every time I get some sort of heading issued.
 
bobmrg said:
Call the tower, ask to speak to a quality control person, and ask where "straight out" can be found in the P/CG. My bet is that no one in a position to do anything about it is aware of this procedural oops.

Bob
Click to expand...

Seems rather useless and incorrect.

midlifeflyer said:
Heck of a procedural oops I heard many, many times.
Click to expand...

Yep and there's a reason for it.

bobmrg said:
...but an oops nontheless. Back in the days when I was attending the annual controller's "Communicating for Safety" conventions there discussions about this kind of thing, so I know that there is an interest in conforming to the 7710.

Bob
Click to expand...

Bob I generally agree with you, but in this case, show us the phrase in the 7710 that means to fly straight out. We've covered already that "straight out" and "runway heading" are NOT the same things, and one would have a wind correction crab and another would not. So where's the standard phraseology for that? "Fly a ground track that matches the runway heading"?

Palmpilot said:
AIM 4-2-1b:

"Since concise phraseology may not always be adequate, use whatever words are necessary to get your message across."
Click to expand...

This. "Fly straight out" isn't hard to understand at all. It's actually "fly runway heading" that's misunderstood and not complied with correctly much of the time, if we really think about it.

And thankfully that one is defined, so people's incorrect assumption about it can be re-educated when they're screwing it up.

But I do see a need for "fly straight out" in the controller's toolbox. I don't see any defined way for them to say it. Since this phrase has became the defacto standard, just print it in the books and call it a day.
 
Kritchlow said:
Why can't most towers issue " runway heading"? I get that very often from towers. Most every time I get some sort of heading issued.
Click to expand...
Vectors imply that radar service is being provided. Unless the tower is a limited radar approach control (LRAC), they can't issue vectors. LRAC designation depends on having certified equipment and radar-certified controllers. Class B and Class C towers are usually all LRACs. Class D towers, with few exceptions, are generally not.
 
Kritchlow said:
Why can't most towers issue " runway heading"? I get that very often from towers. Most every time I get some sort of heading issued.
Click to expand...

Many do. Some might have limitations on parallel runways where you'd better not drift downwind over the top of the other one. And if you're flying "runway heading" properly, as defined in the books, that can happen.

Most people when asked to "fly runway heading" in a stiff crosswind, don't.
 
Harold Rutila said:
Vectors imply that radar service is being provided. Unless the tower is a limited radar approach control (LRAC), they can't issue vectors. LRAC designation depends on having certified equipment and radar-certified controllers. Class B and Class C towers are usually all LRACs. Class D towers, with few exceptions, are generally not.
Click to expand...
But you didn't specify non radar towers.. In addition, I've done hundreds of IFR departures from uncontrolled fields where the clearance was "enter controlled airspace on a heading of xxx". Still no radar at that altitude, but still received a heading (vector).
 
denverpilot said:
Many do. Some might have limitations on parallel runways where you'd better not drift downwind over the top of the other one. And if you're flying "runway heading" properly, as defined in the books, that can happen.

Most people when asked to "fly runway heading" in a stiff crosswind, don't.
Click to expand...
But as long as the guy coming off the parallel is also flying the appropriate heading all is well, regardless of crosswind. The problem lies when one is flying heading and the other is attempting to fly track (European).
 
Kritchlow said:
But as long as the guy coming off the parallel is also flying the appropriate heading all is well, regardless of crosswind. The problem lies when one is flying heading and the other is attempting to fly track (European).
Click to expand...

Yup. That's what I'm saying too. If there's standard phraseology for one, there must be standard phraseology for the other... and now that it's been neglected for as long as it has, a re-education campaign probably, too.

And then we'll still find people doing it wrong in twenty years. Because people don't pay attention to that level of detail. Maybe it would become a "topic of interest" to cover in flight reviews and it'd only take ten years to fix it. After the definition actually made it into the PCG which in and of itself could take half a decade, too.

Hahaha. It isn't ever getting fixed.
 
denverpilot said:
Yup. That's what I'm saying too. If there's standard phraseology for one, there must be standard phraseology for the other... and now that it's been neglected for as long as it has, a re-education campaign probably, too.

And then we'll still find people doing it wrong in twenty years. Because people don't pay attention to that level of detail. Maybe it would become a "topic of interest" to cover in flight reviews and it'd only take ten years to fix it. After the definition actually made it into the PCG which in and of itself could take half a decade, too.

Hahaha. It isn't ever getting fixed.
Click to expand...
The Airbus defaults to runway track after takeoff seeing as though that's the European way to do it. We override it and manually put it in heading mode.
 
Harold Rutila said:
Vectors imply that radar service is being provided. Unless the tower is a limited radar approach control (LRAC), they can't issue vectors. LRAC designation depends on having certified equipment and radar-certified controllers. Class B and Class C towers are usually all LRACs. Class D towers, with few exceptions, are generally not.
Click to expand...
Good point. There are different levels of authority that Towers have. That doesn't mean you won't hear fly runway heading from a Tower that doesn't even have any Radar. If "departures" says give him runway heading, you're gonna get runway heading from the Tower. That's of course pretty much an issue for IFR traffic. This thread started out with the Tower telling a VFR plane to depart "straight out." Sometimes Tower controllers will say runway heading, sometimes they'll say straight out, when what they really mean is just don't be making crosswind or other big turns until you hear more from me or are clear of my pattern/airspace. Of course If you been given a B clearance on the ground before departing there may be a little more to assigned headings than just that. Are you VFR or IFR? Is there a parallel runway? Are there crosswinds? Until ATC gets completely consistent across the board, sometimes ya gotta just apply "the logic check."
 
Last edited:
Overall I think it's equivalent to saying "okay to turn your base". They don't give you an actual heading, but rather just say it's okay to turn (or not turn in the OP's example).
 
Harold Rutila said:
Vectors imply that radar service is being provided. Unless the tower is a limited radar approach control (LRAC), they can't issue vectors. LRAC designation depends on having certified equipment and radar-certified controllers. Class B and Class C towers are usually all LRACs. Class D towers, with few exceptions, are generally not.
Click to expand...
I've never confused "fly runway heading" with radar service. For one thing, I've never heard "radar contact" from a tower controller, and until I hear that, for my own survival I'm not going to assume that I'm on radar. Also, the P/CG definition does not mention radar.
 
Palmpilot said:
I've never confused "fly runway heading" with radar service. For one thing, I've never heard "radar contact" from a tower controller, and until I hear that, for my own survival I'm not going to assume that I'm on radar.
Click to expand...
Bingo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top