Courses vs. Radials

F

FOD

Well-Known Member
When teaching students tracking and intercepting, what phraseology do you use.
For example:
Intercept the 180 degree course to the station
Intercept the 180 degree radial to the station
Intercept the 360 degree course to the station
Track inbound on the 180 radial
etc,etc...
 
ADF/NDB: Courses to, bearings from.

ex:

"Intercept and track the 180 course to the station."

"Fly the 270 bearing from the station."

VOR/TAC:

Inbound, outbound on a radial.

ex:

"Intercept and track inbound on the 270 radial.", ie- from west of the station, intercept the 270 radial and fly it inbound to the station.

"Upon completing the above, Intercept and track outbound on the 120 radial". ie- crossing the station eastbound from the last exercise, turn right and intercept the 120 degree radial outbound.
 
[ QUOTE ]
When teaching students tracking and intercepting, what phraseology do you use.

[/ QUOTE ]I use fairly standard phraseology. You know, the stuff that controllers will say in the real world.

VOR = radials (inbound or outbound) Your example, "Intercept the 180 degree radial to the station" does not exist. There is no such thing as a "radial to the station". Your alternate phrasing, "Track inbound on the 180 radial" is what the student should hear.

NDB = bearings to or from the station. That's just the way it is.
[ QUOTE ]

Intercept the 360 degree course to the station

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not quite sure what this means. What kind of course? If it's a localizer course, it's "intercept the localizer inbound (or outbound)"
 
[ QUOTE ]
I use fairly standard phraseology. You know, the stuff that controllers will say in the real world.

VOR = radials (inbound or outbound) Your example, "Intercept the 180 degree radial to the station" does not exist. There is no such thing as a "radial to the station". Your alternate phrasing, "Track inbound on the 180 radial" is what the student should hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was simply giving an example. The correct phraseology would likely be "track inbound on the CHD 270 radial" (or substitute appropriate station ID).

[ QUOTE ]

Intercept the 360 degree course to the station

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not quite sure what this means. What kind of course? If it's a localizer course, it's "intercept the localizer inbound (or outbound)"

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of course? It, very obviously, depends on what kind of navaid you're working with. It's not rocket science, unless someone has no SA. And it is, courses to/bearings from; bearings are always "from", since a "bearing to" makes no sense. That's why when getting a DF steer, the phraseology is never "bearing to", it's "bearing from".
 
Hey, thanks for the fast reply's. Easy enough and makes perfect sense. Just was wondering what was standard.

[ QUOTE ]
Intercept the 360 degree course to the station

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure what this means. What kind of course? If it's a localizer course, it's "intercept the localizer inbound (or outbound)"

[/ QUOTE ]

Got that out of one of Machodo's books. He was explaining the differeces between courses and radials. Which made me start wondering exactly what the correct phraseology was.
 
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure what this means. What kind of course? If it's a localizer course, it's "intercept the localizer inbound (or outbound)"

[/ QUOTE ]

Got that out of one of Machodo's books. He was explaining the differeces between courses and radials. Which made me start wondering exactly what the correct phraseology was.

[/ QUOTE ]

When talking NDBs vs VOR/TACANs, is when you get courses vs radials. NDBs have no radials. On an NDB, when tracking inbound and correcting for winds, you're flying a "course to" the XYZ NDB. If you were simply homing to the station, that is not correcting for winds, then you're not on a specific course. With VOR/TACAN, now you talk tracking inbound/outbound on specific radials. You can't really "home" to a VOR/TAC unless you have an RMI onboard, so the normal way to fly to/from these navaids is via their established radials.

Courses can also refer to LOCs and LDAs and SDFs too. But you'd obviously (hopefully) have the SA to know when the term "course" is being used in this manner, depending on which phase of flight you're in. Now granted, many publications do now list the term "bearing" as both to and from a station, a change from what it used to be. But IMO, this change is one of the ones the feds made that makes little sense from what the standard used to be. For example, a "course" is still defined as (as related to NDBs) "The intended direction of flight in the horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." The term "bearing" used to mean only from, but a number of years back was combined with "to", which IMO, is a misuse of terminology, and an unnessary change from before. But then again, there's many other aviation-related items (some FARs in particular) that could some changes.
 
[ QUOTE ]
And it is, courses to/bearings from; bearings are always "from", since a "bearing to" makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]Try the AIM and ATC Handbook and Pilot/Controller Glossary. That's my source for correct phraseology. You'll find that these disagree with you.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And it is, courses to/bearings from; bearings are always "from", since a "bearing to" makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]Try the AIM and ATC Handbook and Pilot/Controller Glossary. That's my source for correct phraseology. You'll find that these disagree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

As explained in the bottom of my last post (which you conveniently don't mention, I noticed), I address this very issue.

Next arrogant comment?
 
[ QUOTE ]

Next arrogant comment?

[/ QUOTE ]Sure. ATC is using it. The FAA is using it. I haven't been flying long enough to remember the phrasing being any different. I teach it and use it because, as I said, that's what the pilot will hear from ATC.

You teach somehting different from AIM/ATC standard because you decided it's better that what is actually being used for communications in US airspace.

And I'm arrogant.

Hmmm....
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Next arrogant comment?

[/ QUOTE ]Sure. ATC is using it. The FAA is using it. I haven't been flying long enough to remember the phrasing being any different. I teach it and use it because, as I said, that's what the pilot will hear from ATC.

You teach somehting different from AIM/ATC standard because you decided it's better that what is actually being used for communications in US airspace.

And I'm arrogant.

Hmmm....

[/ QUOTE ]

Partner, read half your pompous replies in your post comments if you want to talk of an arrogant attitude. You may not be that way in real life, but you sure come off that way with some of your posts (which you've even admitted). I teach what's standard too, but I use different techniques (yes, some may not be midlife's way of doing business) gained from experience to get my points across and give some real world backup to what I'm instructing. For someone that's been confined to GA his short CFIing career, you do come off as a know it all; hell, I've been flying in many different applications in many different places from GA to military, and I sure as heck don't know it all. You sometimes remind me of the newbie second lieutenants from the acedemy that have all the book answers infused into them, but have little application experience. There are many different techniques to reaching the same goal, and many ways things happen in the real world of aviation that might not follow your limited frame of reference.
 
popcorn2.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
popcorn2.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, yeah, I know. midlife and I are both being pretty unproductive right now.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well then, in the famous words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along"....

[/ QUOTE ]

Much better.
mrgreen.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well then, in the famous words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along"....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm kinda partial to "Girls! You're both pretty. Now stop the bickering."
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
You sometimes remind me of the newbie second lieutenants from the acedemy that have all the book answers infused into them, but have little application experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said, & as a former enlisted Marine I can relate!

'canfly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top