Various ATC questions

[fromTheShadows]

A few questions on ATC:

1. If I am told to "depart XYZ heading 150" while IFR, and the last
heading given to me by ATC does not quite take me to an intercept of
the XYZ VOR, should I turn to intercept the VOR? Should I wait for
ATC to tell me to turn directly towards the VOR? Should I turn and
apprise ATC of my turn? Or should I just intercept the 150 radial
from the VOR, and then turn to follow that? The last time this
happened, I just silently turned to intercept the VOR (I wasn't far
off, and I assumed that ATC wanted me vectored towards the VOR to
begin with, since it was in my flight plan and I had previously been
vectored in that general direction), but I don't know if this was
right.

2. If I am VFR in Class B, on a transition route, are altitude and
heading at my discretion (within the limits of the transition route)
UNLESS ATC directs me to a specific altitude and/or heading, or do I
always wait for ATC to provide exact instructions?

3. If ATC says "proceed direct to XYZ," and XYZ is a waypoint in my
IFR flight plan, do I assume that I can resume my own navigation after
reaching XYZ, or do I maintain the same course and altitude until
otherwise instructed, even after reaching XYZ?

4. If an IFR departure plate says "fly runway heading, then vectors to
fix (or) XYZ," I take that to mean that I continue on the runway
heading after take-off, until ATC tells me to turn towards some other
fix. Is this correct? If the fix is on my flight plan, do I
automatically resume my own navigation after reaching it, or do I
maintain my heading until ATC says otherwise? If the fix is on the
plate, and the plate says "then own navigation," do I resume my own
navigation after reaching the fix, or do I wait for ATC instructions?

As you can see, I'm still confused as to when I must wait for ATC
instructions to change altitude or heading, and when I'm at my
discretion to do so (either without restriction, as in VFR, or
according to my flight plan in IFR). Recently I went too far in a
Class B airspace in my sim because I had been told which runway I was
being given, but I had not been told to turn, and I thought I had to
continue in the same direction until ATC explicitly gave me a new
heading. So I'm still confused.

Cheers,

Craig

[Jose[_1_]]

> 1. If I am told to "depart XYZ heading 150" while IFR, and the last
> heading given to me by ATC does not quite take me to an intercept of
> the XYZ VOR, should I turn to intercept the VOR?

No.

You depart on 150, contact approach when told, and then approach control
will give you further clearance. If you lose com, =then= you proceed
according to the lost com rules, which in this case would probably have
you turn to intercept the VOR (I assume the VOR is the first fix on your
clearance, and you're actually IMC).

> 2. If I am VFR in Class B, on a transition route, are altitude and
> heading at my discretion (within the limits of the transition route)
> UNLESS ATC directs me to a specific altitude and/or heading, or do I
> always wait for ATC to provide exact instructions?

Once you and ATC agree on a route and altitude (or route and altitude
limits), they expect you to fly it. They provide separation from all
other aircraft, and can't do it if your altitude and heading are at your
discretion.

> 3. If ATC says "proceed direct to XYZ," and XYZ is a waypoint in my
> IFR flight plan, do I assume that I can resume my own navigation after
> reaching XYZ, or do I maintain the same course and altitude until
> otherwise instructed, even after reaching XYZ?

When you pass XYZ, absent further instruction, fly to your next
waypoint. But if in doubt, call and ask. (This is always true, but is
not well simulated by the computer).

> 4. If an IFR departure plate says "fly runway heading, then vectors to
> fix (or) XYZ," I take that to mean that I continue on the runway
> heading after take-off, until ATC tells me to turn towards some other
> fix. Is this correct?

Pretty much. In practice, you will be switched from the tower to
approach frequency, (or if flying from an uncontrolled airport, you will
switch from the CTAF advisory frequency to approach) after takeoff, and
then you'll call them, saying something like "New York Approach, Cessna
429 Whiskey Charlie off of Danbury, out of nine hundred for three
thousand". ATC will then give you further instructions, such as "Cessna
429 Whiskey Charlie, New York approach, radar contact, fly heading 240
vectors to Carmel, climb and maintain six thousand."

In the sim, you can only communicate when the program allows you to, and
you can only say the things the program allows you to say. In real
life, there's more going on.

> Recently I went too far in a
> Class B airspace in my sim because I had been told which runway I was
> being given, but I had not been told to turn, and I thought I had to
> continue in the same direction until ATC explicitly gave me a new
> heading. So I'm still confused.

I don't know exactly which communications you're referring to, but in
real life, VFR, if you are landing at an airport in class B, C, or D
airspace, a landing clearance includes the clearance to maneuver
appropriately to actually land there. Landing clearanaces come from the
tower, but class B clearances come from Approach control. You would be
switched from approach to the tower and the tower would give you the
landing clearance.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Thomas Borchert]

FromTheShadows,

Ok, let's give this a try. For those not following all threads: This is
a try by FromTheShadows (real names have a nice touch of honesty and
responsibility to them, BTW - if you won't stand by your words with your
name, what are they worth?) to get answers to questions he thinks are
valuable for the group despite having been originally posted by
you-know-who. His solution is to repost them under his name. For the
sake of the experiment, I will be very happy to answer any questions and
comments - except those from you-know-who.

> 1. If I am told to "depart XYZ heading 150" while IFR, and the last
> heading given to me by ATC does not quite take me to an intercept of
> the XYZ VOR, should I turn to intercept the VOR?

ATC should always give you a reason for a vector. If you don't get one,
ask. The reason might come in the form of "heading 150 to xyz VOR, then
as files" or "vector for traffic" or some such. You should always know
why you are being sent of into a certain direction. The rules in case of
a loss of comms have been quoted already elsewhere.

> 2. If I am VFR in Class B, on a transition route, are altitude and
> heading at my discretion (within the limits of the transition route)
> UNLESS ATC directs me to a specific altitude and/or heading, or do I
> always wait for ATC to provide exact instructions?

Depends. There are transition routes where you don't need to contact ATC
(in L.A., for example). Otherwise, ATC will give you instruction - or
you request an altitude and heading and see if they accomodate you.

> 3. If ATC says "proceed direct to XYZ," and XYZ is a waypoint in my
> IFR flight plan, do I assume that I can resume my own navigation after
> reaching XYZ, or do I maintain the same course and altitude until
> otherwise instructed, even after reaching XYZ?

Neither. ATC should always tell you what to do afterwards before
"afterwards" arrives. If they don't, you ask. If you can't get an answer
in time, at least in Europe, you hold at the fix until you get an
answer. If you find you have lost comms, you follow the procedure for
that. That procedure can be found in the FARs and/or the AIM.

> 4. If an IFR departure plate says "fly runway heading, then vectors to
> fix (or) XYZ," I take that to mean that I continue on the runway
> heading after take-off, until ATC tells me to turn towards some other
> fix. Is this correct?

Show me a plate that does, and we'll discuss it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Good questions there Craig. How on earth did you think them up? :) They are
so good that the US government has written a book that covers these and many
other questions. Here's a link http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/ if after you
have read through you have follow up questions we'll be here.


"fromTheShadows" > wrote in message
...
>A few questions on ATC:
>
> 1. If I am told to "depart XYZ heading 150" while IFR, and the last
> heading given to me by ATC does not quite take me to an intercept of
> the XYZ VOR, should I turn to intercept the VOR? Should I wait for
> ATC to tell me to turn directly towards the VOR? Should I turn and
> apprise ATC of my turn? Or should I just intercept the 150 radial
> from the VOR, and then turn to follow that? The last time this
> happened, I just silently turned to intercept the VOR (I wasn't far
> off, and I assumed that ATC wanted me vectored towards the VOR to
> begin with, since it was in my flight plan and I had previously been
> vectored in that general direction), but I don't know if this was
> right.
>
> 2. If I am VFR in Class B, on a transition route, are altitude and
> heading at my discretion (within the limits of the transition route)
> UNLESS ATC directs me to a specific altitude and/or heading, or do I
> always wait for ATC to provide exact instructions?
>
> 3. If ATC says "proceed direct to XYZ," and XYZ is a waypoint in my
> IFR flight plan, do I assume that I can resume my own navigation after
> reaching XYZ, or do I maintain the same course and altitude until
> otherwise instructed, even after reaching XYZ?
>
> 4. If an IFR departure plate says "fly runway heading, then vectors to
> fix (or) XYZ," I take that to mean that I continue on the runway
> heading after take-off, until ATC tells me to turn towards some other
> fix. Is this correct? If the fix is on my flight plan, do I
> automatically resume my own navigation after reaching it, or do I
> maintain my heading until ATC says otherwise? If the fix is on the
> plate, and the plate says "then own navigation," do I resume my own
> navigation after reaching the fix, or do I wait for ATC instructions?
>
> As you can see, I'm still confused as to when I must wait for ATC
> instructions to change altitude or heading, and when I'm at my
> discretion to do so (either without restriction, as in VFR, or
> according to my flight plan in IFR). Recently I went too far in a
> Class B airspace in my sim because I had been told which runway I was
> being given, but I had not been told to turn, and I thought I had to
> continue in the same direction until ATC explicitly gave me a new
> heading. So I'm still confused.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig

[fromTheShadows]

Jose wrote:
<snip>
>
> Jose

Thanks for the response Jose, much appreciated. Just one point though,
ATC in the sim is not always limited to what the 'game' can provide.
Networks such as Vatsim and IVAO provide real-time voice ATC from a real
person, many of whom are controllers real life, so such situations can
actually crop up in the sim. Just another feature to allow us poor sim
pilots to get as close as we can to your world.

[fromTheShadows]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> FromTheShadows,
>
> Ok, let's give this a try. For those not following all threads: This is
> a try by FromTheShadows (real names have a nice touch of honesty and
> responsibility to them, BTW - if you won't stand by your words with your
> name, what are they worth?) to get answers to questions he thinks are
> valuable for the group despite having been originally posted by
> you-know-who. His solution is to repost them under his name. For the
> sake of the experiment, I will be very happy to answer any questions and
> comments - except those from you-know-who.
>

Thanks. I'm not trying to be combative here, but this seemed the only
way to get some answers to what seemed a reasonable post from our friend
Mx. BTW, I did sign the post with my real name and a valid email address
is in the header. My handle was just meant to denote my usual lurker status.

[Jose[_1_]]

> ATC in the sim is not always limited to what the 'game' can provide. Networks such as Vatsim and IVAO provide real-time voice ATC from a real person, many of whom are controllers real life

Point taken. (But in that case, you could simply ask at the time.)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[fromTheShadows]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Good questions there Craig. How on earth did you think them up? :) They are
> so good that the US government has written a book that covers these and many
> other questions. Here's a link http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/ if after you
> have read through you have follow up questions we'll be here.
>

:-) I realise that idiot questions from sim pilots are understandably
only barely tolerated here, but if it was a requirement to read every
available publication before posting then there wouldn't be much traffic.

Anyway, I think I've made my point (such as it is) so I'm out of here
until someone pulls my chain again.

Cheers,

Craig

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"fromTheShadows" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Good questions there Craig. How on earth did you think them up? :) They
>> are so good that the US government has written a book that covers these
>> and many other questions. Here's a link http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/ if
>> after you have read through you have follow up questions we'll be here.
>>
>
> :-) I realise that idiot questions from sim pilots are understandably only
> barely tolerated here, but if it was a requirement to read every available
> publication before posting then there wouldn't be much traffic.
>
> Anyway, I think I've made my point (such as it is) so I'm out of here
> until someone pulls my chain again.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig
>
>

No you don't have to read everything but in this and all groups it is nice
if you Google and see if the info is readily available before you ask. The
real reason I answered as I did was there was one time that MX was given a
link to an FAA publication and then came back and pretty much said what was
in the manual was wrong. I wish I could find that message but I don't
remember the specific topic and MX has so many posts that I could hope to
find it.

Please note that you did get a couple of very good answers.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> No.
>
> You depart on 150, contact approach when told, and then approach control
> will give you further clearance.

But I'm not at XYZ. I had a heading of 250, the last heading given to
me by Center. Then I was told "depart XYZ heading 150," which I
didn't understand. I verified that this did indeed mean "turn to 150
when you reach the XYZ VOR" (as I suspected), but then I realized that
the heading I had wouldn't take me directly to the VOR, so I turned 15
degrees or so to make the VOR. At XYZ, I turned to 150. Was this
wrong?

The only other option I can see is to continue on my heading and then
turn to 150 when I reach the 150 radial from XYZ. Is that what I
should do?

Or should I explicitly call up ATC and ask them what to do?

> If you lose com, =then= you proceed
> according to the lost com rules, which in this case would probably have
> you turn to intercept the VOR (I assume the VOR is the first fix on your
> clearance, and you're actually IMC).

In this case, I was in IMC, and this was a fix about two thirds of the
way down my flight plan. I had been given the "preferred route" for
my destination, which I dutifully placed into an amended IFR flight
plan, and then I followed instructions. Had I heard "resume own
navigation," I would have immediately turned to my next filed fix, but
I had not heard that.

> > 2. If I am VFR in Class B, on a transition route, are altitude and
> > heading at my discretion (within the limits of the transition route)
> > UNLESS ATC directs me to a specific altitude and/or heading, or do I
> > always wait for ATC to provide exact instructions?
>
> Once you and ATC agree on a route and altitude (or route and altitude
> limits), they expect you to fly it. They provide separation from all
> other aircraft, and can't do it if your altitude and heading are at your
> discretion.

OK. I once entered Class B for landing, and although I was told what
runway I'd be assigned, I was never told to actually turn towards the
runway, so I kept on going. Then ATC told me I was supposed to be
heading towards the runway.

Note that some of the controllers in the virtual world are also real
controllers, and some aren't, although the latter go through quite a
bit of training.

> > 3. If ATC says "proceed direct to XYZ," and XYZ is a waypoint in my
> > IFR flight plan, do I assume that I can resume my own navigation after
> > reaching XYZ, or do I maintain the same course and altitude until
> > otherwise instructed, even after reaching XYZ?
>
> When you pass XYZ, absent further instruction, fly to your next
> waypoint. But if in doubt, call and ask. (This is always true, but is
> not well simulated by the computer).

In this case, ATC is provided by people, not the computer. Anyway,
thanks.

> > 4. If an IFR departure plate says "fly runway heading, then vectors to
> > fix (or) XYZ," I take that to mean that I continue on the runway
> > heading after take-off, until ATC tells me to turn towards some other
> > fix. Is this correct?
>
> Pretty much. In practice, you will be switched from the tower to
> approach frequency, (or if flying from an uncontrolled airport, you will
> switch from the CTAF advisory frequency to approach) after takeoff, and
> then you'll call them, saying something like "New York Approach, Cessna
> 429 Whiskey Charlie off of Danbury, out of nine hundred for three
> thousand". ATC will then give you further instructions, such as "Cessna
> 429 Whiskey Charlie, New York approach, radar contact, fly heading 240
> vectors to Carmel, climb and maintain six thousand."

That's what I had hoped. I just need to know what to do if I don't
hear from ATC promptly.

> In the sim, you can only communicate when the program allows you to, and
> you can only say the things the program allows you to say. In real
> life, there's more going on.

When you are flying in a virtual environment, the controllers are real
people, not computers.

> I don't know exactly which communications you're referring to, but in
> real life, VFR, if you are landing at an airport in class B, C, or D
> airspace, a landing clearance includes the clearance to maneuver
> appropriately to actually land there.

OK, thanks. I noticed that I was way past the runway centerline, but
I thought I had to wait until a controller actually told me to turn
towards the runway. When he finally did contact me, he sounded miffed
that I had gone too far.

If I am turning on my own in order to make my approach for landing,
should I tell ATC that I'm turning to a new heading?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Point taken. (But in that case, you could simply ask at the time.)

Sometimes they are really busy.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Show me a plate that does, and we'll discuss it.

The LOGAN THREE IFR departure from Logan International says,
literatim, on page two:

"Climb on assigned heading, thence ... expect vectors to assigned
ROUTE/NAVAID/FIX."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Good questions there Craig. How on earth did you think them up? :) They are
> so good that the US government has written a book that covers these and many
> other questions. Here's a link http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/ if after you
> have read through you have follow up questions we'll be here.

If the only purpose of this group is to answer questions that are not
answered elsewhere, then the group need not exist, because _all_
questions are answered elsewhere.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> No you don't have to read everything but in this and all groups it is nice
> if you Google and see if the info is readily available before you ask.

Which manual answers my specific questions?

> The real reason I answered as I did was there was one time that MX was given a
> link to an FAA publication and then came back and pretty much said what was
> in the manual was wrong. I wish I could find that message but I don't
> remember the specific topic and MX has so many posts that I could hope to
> find it.

Uh-huh.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Good questions there Craig. How on earth did you think them up? :) They are
>> so good that the US government has written a book that covers these and many
>> other questions. Here's a link http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/ if after you
>> have read through you have follow up questions we'll be here.
>
> If the only purpose of this group is to answer questions that are not
> answered elsewhere, then the group need not exist, because _all_
> questions are answered elsewhere.
>
What makes you think this group exists to answer your or anyone's else
questions? The point is that you should attempt to look at the
references and learn something before you come here and ask these
questions. Do some of the work yourself and you will receive much
better treatment here.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> The point is that you should attempt to look at the
> references and learn something before you come here and ask these
> questions.

I do.

> Do some of the work yourself and you will receive much
> better treatment here.

No, I won't. That's not the part that irritates (some) people.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Theune writes:
>
>> The point is that you should attempt to look at the
>> references and learn something before you come here and ask these
>> questions.
>
> I do.

Judging from some of a lot of the questions and comments you've
made in this group to date, I can guarantee that you either haven't
read them, or are fooling yourself into believing you have read them.
Either way, go back and read them.

>> Do some of the work yourself and you will receive much
>> better treatment here.
>
> No, I won't. That's not the part that irritates (some) people.

Then you get what you deserve. If you don't want to be bothered
with doing the work and reading the published material out there, then
don't expect to be greeted nicely with questions that aren't a) already
have been frequently asked, b) haven't already been answered before in
the 15+ years this newsgroup has been around, and c) you already think
are wrong.

If you want to ask questions, rec.aviation.student and
rec.aviation.simulators are all further down the street.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFa5jgyBkZmuMZ8L8RAuM+AJwOnFLIwQwEHLYD5TVa//j3tZ0DqgCgrbJn
d9UUnWu5vJECR1oAy5oVmkg=
=BzlE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>FromTheShadows,
>
>Ok, let's give this a try. For those not following all threads: This is
>a try by FromTheShadows (real names have a nice touch of honesty and
>responsibility to them, BTW - if you won't stand by your words with your
>name, what are they worth?) to get answers to questions he thinks are
>valuable for the group despite having been originally posted by
>you-know-who. His solution is to repost them under his name. For the
>sake of the experiment, I will be very happy to answer any questions and
>comments - except those from you-know-who.
>


So, in addition to Mx, we now have Mx proxys as well!
Soon we'll have Mx's lawyers here, just to argue the fine points.

These questions are fine, except for two things:
1) If you're going to fly IFR, you have to study the rules a bit. It's not
that hard, but it is indispensible. You will quickly learn, in this case,
that a clearance limit and/or EFC, or "what happens next" is always part of
a clearance. If it isn't, you're supposed to ask for it. So, inundating the
discussion group with questions that would have been answered in five
minutes worth of reading is, well, not a very nice thing to do.

2)The one who does try to answer will be led down a garden path (thorny
garden) of follow-up questions and challenges to his answers, which in most
cases will end with his failure to follow some twist in the maniacal path,
which will bring the conclusion, even if he is a commercial pilot, flying
IFR every day, that he is just "blowing smoke". The pilot, who thought he
was helping out by applying his experience to answer a seemingly simple
question, suddenly wakes up and realizes he has spend hours of his time,
only to be accused of knowing nothing, by someone who initially introduced
himself as knowing nothing.


If this pattern had not been established and repeated countless times, then
no one would get cross about answering these seemingly simple questions.

GF

[Thomas Borchert]

FromTheShadows,

> I'm not trying to be combative here
>

I didn't think you were.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> No you don't have to read everything but in this and all groups it is
>> nice
>> if you Google and see if the info is readily available before you ask.
>
> Which manual answers my specific questions?
>

You didn't even look at the link provided. That is just about par for the
course. In this case it was the AIM.