Follow assigned heading or track the heading?

[BillTIZ]

Fly a GPS track in a stiff crosswind after being given a heading and ATC will start asking you WTF you're doing. Stuff like, Skyhawk N12345 state present heading...

ATC is figuring out the wind and that assigned heading worked for the last 4 airplanes. You start flying track instead of heading and you are not going to end up where he expects you to be. Plus you just screwed up his wind estimate.

 

[mscard88]

ATC is figuring out the wind and that assigned heading worked for the last 4 airplanes. You start flying track instead of heading and you are not going to end up where he expects you to be. Plus you just screwed up his wind estimate.

Yup. That was usually the first thing we'd ask the PAR controller when relieving him, "what's the hold on", meaning what heading holds the plane on the final course cursor.

 

[labbadabba]

ATC is figuring out the wind and that assigned heading worked for the last 4 airplanes. You start flying track instead of heading and you are not going to end up where he expects you to be. Plus you just screwed up his wind estimate.

Yes. I guess it would have been clearer had I started my statement with 'If'...

 

[luvflyin]

Yup. That was usually the first thing we'd ask the PAR controller when relieving him, "what's the hold on", meaning what heading holds the plane on the final course cursor.

And there was the "they're gonna start drifting around three miles out and ya better give em 10 degrees right away."

 

[luvflyin]

Way I figure it, is it's time to just make it official. Add the damn word Track to acceptable phraseologies. Turn left track xxx, fly track xxx. Of course[pun intended], 'heading' will remain. RNAV is the norm now, not the exception. I'm pretty sure it's a no brainer for anyone with any RNAV to do it, thats what my primitve Garminian430 era brain is telling me anyway. Once that starts happening, heading and track become distinct from each other[which they already are] in phraseolgy, and controllers can issue you what they want at the moment, then the controversy should come to an end. No more trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with questions like "what's your traheadingcourse," and trying to figure out just what the F is it he wants to know. And then we can get back to important sheet like who has the hottest waitresses serving the bestest and juciest hamburgers

 

[mscard88]

And there was the "they're gonna start drifting around three miles out and ya better give em 10 degrees right away."

When I got rated on PAR at one base I was at, SOBs (arrival controller) were handing targets with almost 90* intercepts. Can't see 'em til around 9-10 miles on final. First thing outa my mouth after the pilot checked in was "turn left heading 110* " for runway 13C. I was able to keep em on course, and after 3-4 they gave up and gave intercepts within 30*. Bastards. And this for T38s which come down final fast, think it was around 160-170.

 

[Velocity173]

When I got rated on PAR at one base I was at, SOBs (arrival controller) were handing targets with almost 90* intercepts. Can't see 'em til around 9-10 miles on final. First thing outa my mouth after the pilot checked in was "turn left heading 110* " for runway 13C. I was able to keep em on course, and after 3-4 they gave up and gave intercepts within 30*. Bastards. And this for T38s which come down final fast, think it was around 160-170.

170 minimum. I don't recall any T-38s less than that on final. Combine that with a student pilot in over their heads...chaos!

 

[SbestCFII]

I'm prepping for the IR check ride and the 172 I regularly fly has a wild DG, it has to be reset to the compass every 5 mins. The DG is so unreliable that when given a heading I track the heading on the GPS instead of holding the heading on the DG. Even with a working DG you could have a wide spread between your track and your heading in a cross wind.

That's a long way to ask: when flying IFR do you follow the assigned heading or track the assigned heading?

My gut says fly the assigned heading and ATC will vector to compensate for wind.

ATC gives you a wind-corrected heading that will get you to the desired ground track more or less. The larger issue is the DG. If it's malfunctioning, then you lack the required instrumentation for IFR flight.

 

[SbestCFII]

+1 on replacing the DG.

And honestly, on a 172, I'd look at the electronic retrofit options rather than overhauling the old steam gauge DG. I can't get rid of steam fast enough in the 414...

You can get a Garmin G5 installed and set up as an HSI...the certified units are around 2 grand+install.

 

[mscard88]

Combine that with a student pilot in over their heads...chaos!

Really never experienced that with any of the American USAF student pilots. They were pretty sharp by the time they were qualified to solo T38s in my experience at Columbus.

Now some of the foreign students, hoo boy. Specifically the large contingent of Iranian AF students we had during the 70s. Different ball game with those cats. And they hated bacon!

 

[hindsight2020]

You can get a Garmin G5 installed and set up as an HSI...the certified units are around 2 grand+install.

IOW 5AMUs, if we remove the euphemisms. Absolutely hate that lack of transparency in this hobby. Not calling you out personally, just saying in general.

 

[Larry in TN]

There is no way, that I recall, to get a 767 to fly a specific ground track outside of LNAV. Heading Select flies heading. The nav display (EHSI) shows TRK up but that doesn't change that the heading bug is a heading and, if there is any wind, the heading bug is not centered.

 

[aterpster]

There is no way, that I recall, to get a 767 to fly a specific ground track outside of LNAV. Heading Select flies heading. The nav display (EHSI) shows TRK up but that doesn't change that the heading bug is a heading and, if there is any wind, the heading bug is not centered.

That's my recollection. But, the EHSI was track oriented in LNAV (perhaps RNAV mode in the early 767s). As you correctly state, selecting HDG would command the FD/Autoflight to fly heading.

 

[Larry in TN]

the EHSI was track oriented

That was just how it was displayed. Had nothing to do with what the airplane was flying, heading vs. track.

You also had the VOR and ILS, which were HDG up, and PLAN, which was north up. Nothing changed what the airplane flew. LNAV always flew a track, HDG never did, but there was no way to input a specific track other than in reference to a waypoint.

 

[luvflyin]

In all these EHSI,LNAV,HDG,PLAN,RNAV,up scenarios, isn't the magnetic track that the airplane is flying displayed on the screen somewhere? If the controller says "fly track xxx" you could grab hold of the yoke and do it couldn't you?

 

[Velocity173]

In all these EHSI,LNAV,HDG,PLAN,RNAV,up scenarios, isn't the magnetic track that the airplane is flying displayed on the screen somewhere? If the controller says "fly track xxx" you could grab hold of the yoke and do it couldn't you?

Not sure about HDG. HDG on our autopilot simply flys a magnetic heading.

I think where the problem will occur with assigning a track, even though most have the capability, is it isn't a universal equipment requirement. Until the FAA updates the FARs and requires an RNAV for VFR/IFR aircraft, no way they'll assign tracks. Knowing the FAA, they would probably require tracks only assigned to IFR certified RNAV systems only.

 

[luvflyin]

Not sure about HDG. HDG on our autopilot simply flys a magnetic heading.

I think where the problem will occur with assigning a track, even though most have the capability, is it isn't a universal equipment requirement. Until the FAA updates the FARs and requires an RNAV for VFR/IFR aircraft, no way they'll assign tracks. Knowing the FAA, they would probably require tracks only assigned to IFR certified RNAV systems only.

Yeah. They'd only give it to /G's or equivelant. You would probably have to hand fly it most of the time. It might not get used all that much. But just having it would help put some of the confusion to rest. Once people get used to hearing them say 'fly track' some of the time, and 'fly heading' some of time and having each of them defined, questions like 'what should I do when he says fly heading' should end.

 

[aterpster]

That was just how it was displayed. Had nothing to do with what the airplane was flying, heading vs. track.

You also had the VOR and ILS, which were HDG up, and PLAN, which was north up. Nothing changed what the airplane flew. LNAV always flew a track, HDG never did, but there was no way to input a specific track other than in reference to a waypoint.

Agree with all of that. I should have said "track up," not "track oriented." Anyway that was 30 years ago then my brain was subsequently polluted with the L1011.

Anyway, I'm a Garmin sort of person these days. The G-5000 in the Cessna Sovereign is much more capable than the first generation 767 except for no fail-operational autoland system.

 

[Larry in TN]

In all these EHSI,LNAV,HDG,PLAN,RNAV,up scenarios, isn't the magnetic track that the airplane is flying displayed on the screen somewhere? If the controller says "fly track xxx" you could grab hold of the yoke and do it couldn't you?

Yes, and that's how you'd have to do it, though there's no way to set the heading bug on a track. Hand-fly or heading mode, but those introduce threats through a higher workload which we'd rather avoid when possible.

It wouldn't be the only area where ATC clearances and the flight management system's capabilities don't match up. Another common example is a clearance to do something until something else happens. e.g. "Climb and maintain FL350, leaving FL270 proceed direct [fix]" or "...leaving FL270, normal speed". Those clearances can't be programmed, though they can be built into the procedures in the database, so they introduce the additional threat of forgetting or being distracted at the appropriate time and deviating from the clearance. We could definitely use better coordination between ATC procedures and the manufacturers.

 

[luvflyin]

Yes, and that's how you'd have to do it, though there's no way to set the heading bug on a track. Hand-fly or heading mode, but those introduce threats through a higher workload which we'd rather avoid when possible.

It wouldn't be the only area where ATC clearances and the flight management system's capabilities don't match up. Another common example is a clearance to do something until something else happens. e.g. "Climb and maintain FL350, leaving FL270 proceed direct [fix]" or "...leaving FL270, normal speed". Those clearances can't be programmed, though they can be built into the procedures in the database, so they introduce the additional threat of forgetting or being distracted at the appropriate time and deviating from the clearance. We could definitely use better coordination between ATC procedures and the manufacturers.

Yeah. I get that, and what @Velocity173 was saying above. Just flying Track by the 'numbers' on the screen without a 'needle' of some sort or a 'route line' like the good ol' magenta one could take a little more attention. A balance between all the good stuff GPS does and the increased 'task management' required to use it compared to steam has to be maintained. If there was a way to do it with just one push of button and that didn't mess up the procedure already loaded, it could be useful, maybe. Probably not a good idea afterall.