"fly the track"

A

AnnaG

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
53
Display Name
Display name:
AnnaG
Sometimes, I listen to ATC in the car on the way to work, and pretend I am flying my plane.

Nah, not really. I listen to ATC so I can get more comfortable writing down clearances, and understanding and responding to fast-talking controllers (I'm working on my IR).

This morning, Center/Approach cleared a heavy for a straight-in approach, to which the pilot replied that he would like to "fly the track".

What does this mean?
 
Fly the traffic pattern, I assume, if it was VFR...
 
Maybe he was requesting them to flip on the ILS/Localizer so he could track it in instead of doing a true 'visual' approach...

Maybe there is a railroad track nearby that goes near his wife's office and he wanted to 'buzz' her on the way in...

That's about all I've got for uneducated guesses...
 
Well, it was a visual approach at SeaTac. So, Class Bravo.
But not VFR.

You'd think the ILS would have been switched on...
 
AnnaG said:
Sometimes, I listen to ATC in the car on the way to work, and pretend I am flying my plane.

Nah, not really. I listen to ATC so I can get more comfortable writing down clearances, and understanding and responding to fast-talking controllers (I'm working on my IR).

This morning, Center/Approach cleared a heavy for a straight-in approach, to which the pilot replied that he would like to "fly the track".

What does this mean?
Click to expand...
My guess is that "…the track" was either the ILS or else the charted visual. Just a WAG :)
 
I think he meant he wanted to track a course instead of flying a heading.
 
AnnaG said:
Sometimes, I listen to ATC in the car on the way to work, and pretend I am flying my plane.

Nah, not really. I listen to ATC so I can get more comfortable writing down clearances, and understanding and responding to fast-talking controllers (I'm working on my IR).

This morning, Center/Approach cleared a heavy for a straight-in approach, to which the pilot replied that he would like to "fly the track".

What does this mean?
Click to expand...

That reply to an instruction to fly a straight-in approach suggests he didn't want a straight in approach, that he wanted to take a lap in the holding pattern or fly the procedure turn. Where was this? What approach?
 
roncachamp said:
That reply to an instruction to fly a straight-in approach suggests he didn't want a straight in approach, that he wanted to take a lap in the holding pattern or fly the procedure turn. Where was this? What approach?
Click to expand...

I can't remember exactly how the controller replied, but something along the lines that he was cleared to do so. It didn't seem like a funny.

This was at SeaTac. Not sure the exact approach. But flights were being cleared for 16R.
 
AnnaG said:
Sometimes, I listen to ATC in the car on the way to work, and pretend I am flying my plane.

Nah, not really. I listen to ATC so I can get more comfortable writing down clearances, and understanding and responding to fast-talking controllers (I'm working on my IR).

This morning, Center/Approach cleared a heavy for a straight-in approach, to which the pilot replied that he would like to "fly the track".

What does this mean?
Click to expand...

It is non-standard phraseology. Delete it from your memory bank. Air carrier pilots are just as capable of making phraseology mistakes as anyone else.

Bob Gardner
 
Gucci Pilot said:
I think he meant he wanted to track a course instead of flying a heading.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? For an airline pilot? Why would he want to track a course instead of flying a heading?
 
bobmrg said:
It is non-standard phraseology. Delete it from your memory bank. Air carrier pilots are just as capable of making phraseology mistakes as anyone else.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

I can delete it from my memory bank. I'm just curious about what it means.

Bob, I love your Advanced Pilot book (if it's possible to love a text book). Thanks.
 
AnnaG said:
I can delete it from my memory bank. I'm just curious about what it means.
Click to expand...

Not speaking for Bob....

When IFR the clearance should have been for either a visual approach or one of the available instrument approach procedures.

Cleared straight in is close to VFR phrasing from a controller so it would be unusual and incorrect for the controller to say that to an aircraft under IFR. Maybe the pilot did the best he could and implied that he was utilizing one of the available straight in approaches, e.g. tracking the localizer.

In other words it sounds non-standard all the way around and we can't know exactly what was meant with 100% certainty. We can surmise that approach wanted the aircraft to fly to the airport and so did the pilot.
 
Last edited:
AnnaG said:
What does that mean? For an airline pilot? Why would he want to track a course instead of flying a heading?
Click to expand...

Just flying the localizer, nothing more.

We fly visuals BUT are required to use the ILS if available as a backup.
 
"Flying the track" is standard procedure when flying the Ripon approach into Oshkosk for Airventure ;)
 
AnnaG said:
I can delete it from my memory bank. I'm just curious about what it means.

Bob, I love your Advanced Pilot book (if it's possible to love a text book). Thanks.
Click to expand...

To someone who is trying to learn how to talk on the radio professionally, it doesn't mean anything. It is not in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. Forget about it, please. Odds are that you will never hear it again, and you most assuredly should not use it yourself.

Bob
 
bobmrg said:
To someone who is trying to learn how to talk on the radio professionally, it doesn't mean anything. It is not in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. Forget about it, please. Odds are that you will never hear it again, and you most assuredly should not use it yourself.

Bob
Click to expand...

This, if you hear anamolous stuff, just disregard.
 
AnnaG said:
Sometimes, I listen to ATC in the car on the way to work, and pretend I am flying my plane.

Nah, not really. I listen to ATC so I can get more comfortable writing down clearances, and understanding and responding to fast-talking controllers (I'm working on my IR).

This morning, Center/Approach cleared a heavy for a straight-in approach, to which the pilot replied that he would like to "fly the track".

What does this mean?
Click to expand...
Are you sure you heard it correctly? Could he have said that he'd "like to track in on the localizer" or something like that?

Do you have the time you heard this. Maybe somebody could pull the liveatc audio for context.

I'm curious myself...
 
Clark1961 said:
Cleared straight in is close to VFR phrasing from a controller so it would be unusual and incorrect for the controller to say that to an aircraft under IFR. Maybe the pilot did the best he could and implied that he was utilizing one of the available straight in approaches, e.g. tracking the localizer.

In other words it sounds non-standard all the way around and we can't know exactly what was meant with 100% certainty. We can surmise that approach wanted the aircraft to fly to the airport and so did the pilot.
Click to expand...

Order JO 7110.65V Air Traffic Control

Chapter 4. IFR

Section 8. Approach Clearance Procedures

4−8−1. APPROACH CLEARANCE

e. For both RNAV and conventional approaches, intercept angles greater than 90 degrees may be used when a procedure turn, a hold-in-lieu of procedure turn pattern, or arrival holding is depicted and the pilot will execute the procedure. If a procedure turn, hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, or arrival holding pattern is depicted and the angle of intercept is 90 degrees or less, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn. (See FIG 4−8−3)

PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH
 
AnnaG said:
What does that mean? For an airline pilot? Why would he want to track a course instead of flying a heading?
Click to expand...

I'm just stating it the way I interpret it. A few times I have had a controller give me quite a few different vectors when the winds were wicked strong. I finally just said, "Center, what course do you want me to fly to make it easier for you?!" On a lot of modern glass cockpit airplanes, the GPS can take the GPS track and superimpose that information on the PFD to let you know what you are tracking across the ground instead of the heading which doesn't account for crosswinds. That would be important if you wanted to fly a specific ground track across the ground instead of just flying a heading and letting the winds push you wherever they like.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Are you sure you heard it correctly? Could he have said that he'd "like to track in on the localizer" or something like that?

Do you have the time you heard this. Maybe somebody could pull the liveatc audio for context.

I'm curious myself...
Click to expand...


:yeahthat::yeahthat:
 
roncachamp said:
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH
Click to expand...

Correct. The "Cleared straight-in" must have the approach appended which the OP did not mention. Therefore the "Cleared straight-in" as reported by the OP was incorrect for the controller to say.
 
Doesn't sound standard to me, but if they are flying some type of RNAV arrival or clearance and it ends at a fix, they might be trying to say just keeping going, although I think proper terminology is after ABCDE fix fly heading or something like that. I wouldn't worry about it.
 
Clark1961 said:
Correct. The "Cleared straight-in" must have the approach appended which the OP did not mention. Therefore the "Cleared straight-in" as reported by the OP was incorrect for the controller to say.
Click to expand...

We don't know how the clearance was stated, the OP quoted nothing from the controller. You wrote; "Cleared straight in is close to VFR phrasing from a controller so it would be unusual and incorrect for the controller to say that to an aircraft under IFR." "Straight-in" is no more unusual or incorrect for a controller to say to an aircraft operating IFR than it is to one operating VFR.
 
roncachamp said:
We don't know how the clearance was stated, the OP quoted nothing from the controller. You wrote; "Cleared straight in is close to VFR phrasing from a controller so it would be unusual and incorrect for the controller to say that to an aircraft under IFR." "Straight-in" is no more unusual or incorrect for a controller to say to an aircraft operating IFR than it is to one operating VFR.
Click to expand...

As you previously noted, "straight-in" by itself is incorrect. Do you really want to argue that it is correct now? Drop it Steve.
 
Clark1961 said:
As you previously noted, "straight-in" by itself is incorrect. Do you really want to argue that it is correct now? Drop it Steve.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that your statement is incorrect and that we don't know how the clearance was issued.
 
roncachamp said:
I'm just pointing out that your statement is incorrect and that we don't know how the clearance was issued.
Click to expand...

Steve - My statement is correct and your post supported it. "Straight-in" is to be followed by the approach. The use of "straight-in" by itself is incorrect for IFR. According the the OP, the controller used "straight-in" by itself. That is all we know. Your claims that we don't know what the controller really said are pointless and simply an attempt to distract.
 
AnnaG said:
I can delete it from my memory bank. I'm just curious about what it means.
.
Click to expand...

Anna, I share your curiosity and find it's interesting that no one will explain to you. If they know.

There seems to be an implication that if you know bad terminology, you will use it. Many of us know that "looking" is non-standard terminology but we understand that a pilot has been given a traffic alert and does not see the traffic. I use "negative contact". This illustrates that knowing bad terminology does not mean one uses it.

I am glad to know that "looking" means negative contact because it gives me information I integrate into my situational awareness and my expectations of what kind of separation ATC will be considering.

I don't understand why knowing the pilot's intent in your example would harm anyone.
 
I hate it when people stray from accepted phraseology... I wonder what the controller's response was to that?

"Cleared for the TRACK?" :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
Steve - My statement is correct and your post supported it. "Straight-in" is to be followed by the approach. The use of "straight-in" by itself is incorrect for IFR. According the the OP, the controller used "straight-in" by itself. That is all we know. Your claims that we don't know what the controller really said are pointless and simply an attempt to distract.
Click to expand...

You wrote; "Cleared straight in is close to VFR phrasing from a controller..." "Cleared straight in" appears only in Chapter 4. IFR of the ATC order. Please direct me to the message in which the OP provided a verbatim quote of the clearance.
 
jnmeade said:
Anna, I share your curiosity and find it's interesting that no one will explain to you. If they know.
Click to expand...

Nobody is explaining it because nobody knows. I don't think I've ever heard the terminology used before - was this heavy from overseas?

Even if cleared "straight-in" and I decide to use the localizer, FMS, railroad tracks, or whatever - I'm not going to say a word about it to the controller unless I plan on doing something other than fly "straight-in" to the runway. :dunno:
 
CJones said:
Maybe there is a railroad track nearby that goes near his wife's office and he wanted to 'buzz' her on the way in...
Click to expand...

I know you are joking, but to me, this is probably the most likely answer if a railroad track is actually there and a visual pathfinder to the approach.

Here in the FRZ, they always say "fly the river" to the heavies doing visual approaches heading up the Potomac to DCA.
 
Bonchie said:
I know you are joking, but to me, this is probably the most likely answer if a railroad track is actually there and a visual pathfinder to the approach.

Here in the FRZ, they always say "fly the river" to the heavies doing visual approaches heading up the Potomac to DCA.
Click to expand...

There are no railroad tracks leading to/toward runway(s) 16 at SeaTac.

Bob Gardner
 
Maybe he was offering air-to-air refueling before landing? :lol:

A bit of googling turned up that terminology, "flying the track" is apparently the path that the tanker plane follows -- a giant oval in the sky.
 
Okay I'm late to this party and I haven't read all the posts, but my first thought, when I read "cleared straight in" and the pilot replying that he'd like to do something else, was that he might want to fly the procedure turn, either because he wasn't lined up well enough for the straight-in, or because it was a HILPT, assuming it was. You know, for currency purposes.

HILPT == "the track"? Makes sense to me. FWIW. :dunno:

Which approach was this?
 
As long a we're in the wild guess mode, here is my supposition:

I'm assuming "track" means the track indicator on the GPS in the cockpit. (Using the term track rather than heading or bearing may mean there was a good crosswind correction component.)

There are 3 parallel RW 16 at SeaTac. We don't know which runway the heavy was cleared to. Let's suppose he was off to the left and cleared straight in for 16C.

The heavy expressed an interest in "flying the track"

To me, that means the heavy wanted to fly directly from where he was to 16C and that he felt that might put him across the approach to 16L and he was advising tower of this so tower would not think the heavy was going to bear to the right, pick up and then fly a localizer approach but in fact was going to fly directly from his present position to where he intended to turn on final, well inside the FAF is implied.

My impression is the heavy was being (overly) cautious to insure tower knew he was going to clip what would be the normal 16L approach.

No need to give any credence to this supposition, it's only a guess. However, it falls in line with my earlier comment that other pilots listening to this exchange use what they hear to augment their situational awareness. I support comments that standard terminology should be used. I also believe every one of us will try to put any "peg" we hear in the hole that it best seems to fit into and while this may or may not be smart it is human.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top