VOR and GPS intercepting and tracking

J

John777

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
199
Display Name
Display name:
Louis
Does anyone have good FAA or other reference for VOR and GPS intercepting and tracking phraseology?

Lastly, for G1000 users, when you creat user waypoint on MFD, fly direct and intercept/track that course, why does sensitivity of the CDI always remains 'TERM' mode?


John.
 
I'm sure the Instrument Flying Handbook has intercepting ad tracking courses in it
 
I looked at it but no phraseologies at all.
 
intercepting and tracking sir.
 
I'm confused. What's your question? Do you want to know what intercepting and tracking means?
 
N12345, fly heading 270 and join V123 to the ABC Vortac, track the ABC radial 360 radial to HOOBY intersection, intercept the XYZ Vortac radial 264.
 
John777 said:
intercepting and tracking sir.
Click to expand...

Intercepting is getting on the course line

Tracking is maintaining the course line.

I guess I really don't know what you are asking.
 
I meant to say that the phraseology used during the ATC communication sir.

Like "intercept and track..." for GPS and VOR .
 
John777 said:
I meant to say that the phraseology used during the ATC communication sir.

Like "intercept and track..." for GPS and VOR .
Click to expand...
I'm with @Gucci Pilot on this. I'm not sure what you are asking either. It's just plain English. If they want you to intercept something, they will say "intercept," usually accompanied with a heading that will get you there. If they want you to track something, they will say "track" and what it is they want you to track.
 
The FAA reference is the Air Traffic Control Handbook, JO 7110.65. Google 7110.65W. It downloads in a few seconds. I'll get back later with some page numbers for you.
 
John777 said:
Thank you sir. These FAA orders are really useful docs for studying.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. The phraseology doesn't apply to pilots, and the stuff you need to understand is all in the AIM. As a student pilot, parts of the AIM are already well beyond what you need.

You will NEVER hear an instruction to track or intercept an airway as a VFR pilot. Those are for instrument clearances. You may get "fly direct XXX" inside Class B and will certainly get vectors for traffic on flight following. But never a route.
 
MAKG1 said:
No they aren't. The phraseology doesn't apply to pilots, and the stuff you need to understand is all in the AIM. As a student pilot, parts of the AIM are already well beyond what you need.

You will NEVER hear an instruction to track or intercept an airway as a VFR pilot. Those are for instrument clearances. You may get "fly direct XXX" inside Class B and will certainly get vectors for traffic on flight following. But never a route.
Click to expand...
Understanding ATC phraseology is definitely a help for all pilots.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Understanding ATC phraseology is definitely a help for all pilots.
Click to expand...
That's true, but much of that particular document is not relevant to a VFR pilot. The AIM has quite a lot of phraseology as well, and it's actually relevant to pilots. IMO, it still goes into way too much detail. The phraseology that really matters is in a different place. Like VFR clearances (takeoff/landing/crossing, Class B, etc.). A VFR pilot is never going to see CRAFT (aside from bits and pieces), and even if he did, it's in the AIM and Instrument Flying Handbook.

Focus and relevance. Most phraseology is not relevant to pilots who will never encounter it.
 
Hmmm... I thought John777 was an instrument student? (or at least an instrument student wannabe)
 
azure said:
Hmmm... I thought John777 was an instrument student? (or at least an instrument student wannabe)
Click to expand...

No one has gotten him to explain where exactly he is in the student process, but he's explained he has no local CFI and "studies" quite a bit.

Many of the questions make no sense for any normal syllabus of learning stuff in any normal order, but they're interesting questions sometimes.

Nothing wrong with studying random stuff just to know it, but he'll probably have a strange time switching back to a directed orderly plan for reaching any specific rating if he's as all over the place as the posted questions are.
 
azure said:
Hmmm... I thought John777 was an instrument student? (or at least an instrument student wannabe)
Click to expand...
He's a primary student, apparently with lessons suspended for unspecified reasons. As Nate says, no one knows how far along he is. I suspect he's a flight simmer, possibly a VATSIM volunteer. Questions seem to come from random places without reason and are usually on instrument procedures or other topics well above his level.
 
MAKG1 said:
He's a primary student, apparently with lessons suspended for unspecified reasons. As Nate says, no one knows how far along he is. I suspect he's a flight simmer, possibly a VATSIM volunteer. Questions seem to come from random places without reason and are usually on instrument procedures or other topics well above his level.
Click to expand...

This is the most plausible, I think. I know that when I was starting out, I was in the same boat. I was a simmer who wanted to do it right. I found a website about flight navigation for simmers for MSFS2000 so it was an old site with lots fascinating old school techniques like wind triangles, NDB bracketing, VOR time/distance checks, etc. I dove in all the way.

I bought every book I could find on aviation technique and navigation. I nerded out whenever I met a pilot and would get into discussions about how isogonic lines worked on a map. (Why don't they line up with the 360 radial on a VOR?) In the end, once I started my training it was a breeze. I scored 97 on my written and wrapped up my PPL in 45 hours despite spreading my primary training out over 2 1/2 years.

Looking back tho, I dug through a lot of minutiae that hasn't served me so far other than it's been filed in the "good to know" drawer.
 
Not sure I buy that. He passes my Turing test, just doesn't come across as a native English speaker.
 
I thought John777 means "My name is John and I start 777 threads about random questions I encounter while I am studying and won't ask my CFI"

:D


Just joking...I don't mind the threads, like @denverpilot says, some of these lead to interesting answers!
 
neilw2 said:
I thought John777 means "My name is John and I start 777 threads about random questions I encounter while I am studying and won't ask my CFI"
Just joking...I don't mind the threads, like @denverpilot says, some of these lead to interesting answers!
Click to expand...

Yep, I get mildly annoyed until I start reading some of the answers.
 
Oh for heaven's sake. If we had something important to do we wouldn't be here, now would we? Why does a poster need to be qualified to ask a question? Why can't we accept the question for just a question ("sometimes a cigar is just a cigar") and, if we know the answer, just post the answer without suspecting the motivation of the question, the questioner or his trainer? If the question is beneath my "level" (very very few would be) I just don't post an answer.

Scott
 
Everything is at my fault. MY FAULT.
Is everyone happy now>?
 
MAKG1 said:
No they aren't. The phraseology doesn't apply to pilots, and the stuff you need to understand is all in the AIM. As a student pilot, parts of the AIM are already well beyond what you need.

You will NEVER hear an instruction to track or intercept an airway as a VFR pilot. Those are for instrument clearances. You may get "fly direct XXX" inside Class B and will certainly get vectors for traffic on flight following. But never a route.
Click to expand...

I mildly disagree. The ATCH is written for controllers, not pilots, as you note...but I have found that specific chapters are useful for the "I never know what to expect ATC to say" crowd. It was invaluable in writing SAY AGAIN, PLEASE....it and a few thousand hours flying in the system.

Bob Gardner
 
Last edited:
l8evator said:
Oh for heaven's sake. If we had something important to do we wouldn't be here, now would we? Why does a poster need to be qualified to ask a question? Why can't we accept the question for just a question ("sometimes a cigar is just a cigar") and, if we know the answer, just post the answer without suspecting the motivation of the question, the questioner or his trainer? If the question is beneath my "level" (very very few would be) I just don't post an answer.
Click to expand...

Because it didn't make sense, that's why. Perhaps if you attempted to answer instead of criticizing those who did you would understand their predicament.

It's like asking, "What is the correct phraseology for propellers?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top