Talking to departure control

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I'm not from the US, but just wondering if you depart ifr from an
> airport and tower tells you to contact departure, I know that you
> check in with callsign, altitude through, and cleared altitude.
>
> But I was wondering if the AIM recommends anywhere also to include the
> departure runway and the departure airport too.

They already know that from the handoff. They know your altitude, too, but
you give it so that they can verify that the encoded altitude from the
transponder matches the altitude you see on your instruments.

[[email protected]]

I'm not from the US, but just wondering if you depart ifr from an
airport and tower tells you to contact departure, I know that you
check in with callsign, altitude through, and cleared altitude.

But I was wondering if the AIM recommends anywhere also to include the
departure runway and the departure airport too.

thanks, Stan

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Be aware that the previous post comes from an individual who has never flown
or held a pilot certificate, or even a medical. His "knowledge" about flying
comes from playing computer games.

The difficulty is that he is frequently only partially correct, and always
refuses to admit that he's wrong.

The bottom line is that he has absolutely no experience flying at all.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> But I was wondering if the AIM recommends anywhere also to include the
> departure runway and the departure airport too.
>

There's no need for that, he already knows.

[Mike]

> wrote in message
...
> I'm not from the US, but just wondering if you depart ifr from an
> airport and tower tells you to contact departure, I know that you
> check in with callsign, altitude through, and cleared altitude.
>
> But I was wondering if the AIM recommends anywhere also to include the
> departure runway and the departure airport too.

While you are waiting for your IFR departure clearance, the tower controller
is talking to the departure controller via landline. The departure
controller tells the tower controller what heading and altitude to give you.
So departure already knows where you're supposed to be going and as he is
the one who released you, he already knows where you're coming from as well.

All you need to do is give the standard information for a handoff.

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the reply, and Steven and Mike too.

Canada seems to handle their hand offs very similar to the way the US
does, however they include this phrase in their AIM

"The initial call to Departure control whould contain at least....the
runway of departure..."

Hence you often hear pilots include the runway in the intial contact.
Plus, since the wording is "at least", also the airport of departure,
since there may be more than one that departure control is working.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:34:49 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

writes:
>
>> I'm not from the US, but just wondering if you depart ifr from an
>> airport and tower tells you to contact departure, I know that you
>> check in with callsign, altitude through, and cleared altitude.
>>
>> But I was wondering if the AIM recommends anywhere also to include the
>> departure runway and the departure airport too.
>
>They already know that from the handoff. They know your altitude, too, but
>you give it so that they can verify that the encoded altitude from the
>transponder matches the altitude you see on your instruments.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> Canada seems to handle their hand offs very similar to the way the US
> does, however they include this phrase in their AIM
>
> "The initial call to Departure control whould contain at least....the
> runway of departure..."
>

Including departures from a towered field?

[Ross]

wrote:
> I'm not from the US, but just wondering if you depart ifr from an
> airport and tower tells you to contact departure, I know that you
> check in with callsign, altitude through, and cleared altitude.
>
> But I was wondering if the AIM recommends anywhere also to include the
> departure runway and the departure airport too.
>
> thanks, Stan
>

I am not sure that is necessary. They know where you are leaving from,
they just need to calibrate your altitude (alt passing though) with what
they are seeing and confirm you are going to the correct altitude (last
assigned).

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[[email protected]]

Yes, including towered fields is the way I understand it. Transport
Canada AIM, Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services, Instrument
Flight Rules - Departure Procedures, Section 5 Standard Instrument
Departure, page 233 (2006 AIM, more current avail on the net
somewhere). The text makes no reference to towered or non towered.
However the example immediately after the recommendation to include
runway of departure is "Ottawa departures, beech .....off runway 25,
heading 250....", and the towered field at Ottawa does in fact have a
runway 25. No direct recommendation to include heading given in the
AIP, except that the communication "should contain at least" the
callsign, r/w of dept, altitude at and climbing to.

Another interesting difference, on the page before this, is the
clarification of "fly runway heading". "Runway 04, magnetic heading
044 deg, then fly a heading of 044 deg M"
The US regs would be to fly 040 deg M, IIRC.

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 05:53:03 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> Canada seems to handle their hand offs very similar to the way the US
>> does, however they include this phrase in their AIM
>>
>> "The initial call to Departure control whould contain at least....the
>> runway of departure..."
>>
>
>Including departures from a towered field?
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> Yes, including towered fields is the way I understand it. Transport
> Canada AIM, Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services, Instrument
> Flight Rules - Departure Procedures, Section 5 Standard Instrument
> Departure, page 233 (2006 AIM, more current avail on the net
> somewhere). The text makes no reference to towered or non towered.
> However the example immediately after the recommendation to include
> runway of departure is "Ottawa departures, beech .....off runway 25,
> heading 250....", and the towered field at Ottawa does in fact have a
> runway 25. No direct recommendation to include heading given in the
> AIP, except that the communication "should contain at least" the
> callsign, r/w of dept, altitude at and climbing to.
>

Strange.


>
> Another interesting difference, on the page before this, is the
> clarification of "fly runway heading". "Runway 04, magnetic heading
> 044 deg, then fly a heading of 044 deg M"
> The US regs would be to fly 040 deg M, IIRC.
>

Nope. From the current Pilot/Controller Glossary:


RUNWAY HEADING- The magnetic direction that corresponds with the runway
centerline extended, not
the painted runway number. When cleared to "fly or maintain runway heading,"
pilots are expected to fly or maintain the heading that corresponds with the
extended centerline of the departure runway. Drift correction shall not be
applied; e.g., Runway 4, actual magnetic heading of the runway centerline
044, fly 044.

[[email protected]]

Steven, has "runway heading" always been 044, as in your example. Or
was it previously 040, the painted runway number?

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:20:06 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

wrote:

>
>
>>
>> Another interesting difference, on the page before this, is the
>> clarification of "fly runway heading". "Runway 04, magnetic heading
>> 044 deg, then fly a heading of 044 deg M"
>> The US regs would be to fly 040 deg M, IIRC.
>>
>
>Nope. From the current Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>
>
>RUNWAY HEADING- The magnetic direction that corresponds with the runway
>centerline extended, not
>the painted runway number. When cleared to "fly or maintain runway heading,"
>pilots are expected to fly or maintain the heading that corresponds with the
>extended centerline of the departure runway. Drift correction shall not be
>applied; e.g., Runway 4, actual magnetic heading of the runway centerline
>044, fly 044.
>
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> Steven, has "runway heading" always been 044, as in your example. Or
> was it previously 040, the painted runway number?
>

It wasn't by accident that I wrote CURRENT Pilot/Controller Glossary. ISTR
that it previously meant to fly the designated runway heading without regard
to the actual runway heading. I have several publications from the
late-seventies and on that include the Pilot/Controller Glossary. All that
include the term "Runway Heading" define it the same way, " The magnetic
direction that corresponds with the runway centerline extended, not the
painted runway number."

[Everett M. Greene[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> wrote:
> >
> > Steven, has "runway heading" always been 044, as in your example. Or
> > was it previously 040, the painted runway number?
>
> It wasn't by accident that I wrote CURRENT Pilot/Controller Glossary. ISTR
> that it previously meant to fly the designated runway heading without regard
> to the actual runway heading. I have several publications from the
> late-seventies and on that include the Pilot/Controller Glossary. All that
> include the term "Runway Heading" define it the same way, " The magnetic
> direction that corresponds with the runway centerline extended, not the
> painted runway number."

One is to fly the runway centerline without making any turns.
The actual number for the heading is not overly relevant
since the heading is only approximate once airborne. The
intent is to not be wandering around until ATC has further
instructions for you.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Everett M. Greene wrote:
>
> One is to fly the runway centerline without making any turns.
> The actual number for the heading is not overly relevant
> since the heading is only approximate once airborne. The
> intent is to not be wandering around until ATC has further
> instructions for you.
>

To fly the runway centerline with a crosswind you'd have to turn into the
wind to cancel drift.