When able, direct

[msmspilot]

I was told by a controller tonight that it is not a legal clearance for him to issue "Fly heading xxx, when able, direct VOR."

The aircraft in question is a /U and the VOR is outside the controller's airspace.

Is he correct? I certainly have been given that clearance and heard it given to others often enough to think it is at least not enforced if it's illegal.

 

[Blip16]

I was told by a controller tonight that it is not a legal clearance for him to issue "Fly heading xxx, when able, direct VOR."

The aircraft in question is a /U and the VOR is outside the controller's airspace.

Is he correct? I certainly have been given that clearance and heard it given to others often enough to think it is at least not enforced if it's illegal.

i hear that clearance daily, so i am curious now too

 

[AM011309]

We use that clearance regularly too, with the "direct to" VOR being way outside our airspace. I've never heard that it's not a legal clearance.

Although I was just thinking -- we give that clearance because if we just clear them direct without the heading, they tune it in and think they are getting it, but it's unreliable and always causes them to drift and kind of end up heading more south as opposed to due west where the VOR is. So, if I say "fly heading ###, XXX when able - what's to stop them from thinking they are picking it up, going direct/not flying the heading and it still being unreliable?? Not a pilot so maybe there's an answer

 

[Ozelot]

i hear that clearance daily, so i am curious now too

I have issued it to your buddies on the MOT run before.

We use it all the time here too. I was trained to say "fly heading XXX, vector to ABC". I don't use when able proceed direct cause i wasn't trained to use those words. I just do what I was trained. Even though "when able proceed direct" is in the book.

 

[queeno]

well yes and no,if you have radar coverage and are radar monitoring the A/C on the vector untill the A/C is within navaid coverage it is leagle, if the vector puts the A/C in a area of no radar coverage outside the navaids coverage area than no.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I was told by a controller tonight that it is not a legal clearance for him to issue "Fly heading xxx, when able, direct VOR."

The aircraft in question is a /U and the VOR is outside the controller's airspace.

Is he correct? I certainly have been given that clearance and heard it given to others often enough to think it is at least not enforced if it's illegal.

I've been given it too (/A airplane, well out of service volume for the VOR I've been vectored to). I think I was over Priest once when I was given "heading such and such when able direct Manteca". The next few sectors had various heading adjustments for me.

(I also invoked the VFR GPS at this point, figuring that some point-to-point capability was better than no point-to-point capability.)

 

[msmspilot]

We use that clearance regularly too, with the "direct to" VOR being way outside our airspace. I've never heard that it's not a legal clearance.

Although I was just thinking -- we give that clearance because if we just clear them direct without the heading, they tune it in and think they are getting it, but it's unreliable and always causes them to drift and kind of end up heading more south as opposed to due west where the VOR is. So, if I say "fly heading ###, XXX when able - what's to stop them from thinking they are picking it up, going direct/not flying the heading and it still being unreliable?? Not a pilot so maybe there's an answer

Well, me personally, I fly the assigned heading until I'm within the service volume of said navaid.

well yes and no,if you have radar coverage and are radar monitoring the A/C on the vector untill the A/C is within navaid coverage it is leagle, if the vector puts the A/C in a area of no radar coverage outside the navaids coverage area than no.

The area has great radar coverage. 2500ft and below for the entire route, and I fly it at 8000ft usually.

 

[EIR]

I'm curious to hear what some of the ATC guys say in regards to this.

Our aircraft is /A and I get "Fly heading xxx, when able, direct VOR" 99.9% of the time.

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

well yes and no,if you have radar coverage and are radar monitoring the A/C on the vector untill the A/C is within navaid coverage it is leagle, if the vector puts the A/C in a area of no radar coverage outside the navaids coverage area than no.

Unless you're in ANC center airspace.

Queeno is right. There is nothing illegal about giving an aircraft a heading and a "when able direct navaid." The navaid being outside the controller's airspace has nothing to do with it. As long as the aircraft can be radar monitored (in the lower 48), it is common and ok.

 

[msmspilot]

Unless you're in ANC center airspace.

Queeno is right. There is nothing illegal about giving an aircraft a heading and a "when able direct navaid." The navaid being outside the controller's airspace has nothing to do with it. As long as the aircraft can be radar monitored (in the lower 48), it is common and ok.

That's what I thought. But... This guy has fussed at me twice for this now, and this time told me it was illegal for him to offer it. Oh well.

The first time he just told me he didn't have any way to do it. Which I knew was a total lie.

 

[Landis]

Flying /A from KMAE to KHWD one evening upon receiving the clearance I got:

"Report when you have information Juliet. Fly heading 270 intercept the localizer".

Never mind that the ATIS was going to switch twice before I got there or that I was still just over an hour away or that I was flying with a student who needed something to do besides hold a heading. Sure was an interesting clearance. Guess things like that happen all the time depending on where you are.

 

[Douglas]

I'm /A and all I have to say is that I love that clearance...so keep it up.

 

[Blip16]

I'm /A and all I have to say is that I love that clearance...so keep it up.

yup! I haven't actually looked at our flight plans, but i believe we are filed as "radar vectors"

 

[dustoff17]

That's what I thought. But... This guy has fussed at me twice for this now, and this time told me it was illegal for him to offer it. Oh well.

The first time he just told me he didn't have any way to do it. Which I knew was a total lie.

The controller might be a bit confused. What about weather avoidance? I hear "Fly heading XXX (or "Cleared to deviate XX degrees right/left of course), direct XXX when able" all the time.

 

[FM_Weasel]

This is pretty basic ATC stuff, unless there's a operational/equipment limitation that I'm not aware of, the controller should absolutely be able to give such a clearance. The correct phraseology is "When able, PROCEED direct <fix>." We use this all the time to get aircraft going in the direction of the fix/NAVAID they've been cleared to. It's very common for /A or /U because they may not yet be receiving the NAVAID. They are expected to fly the assigned heading until receiving the NAVAID, then proceed direct to the NAVAID. If they're outside of the operational limitation area of the NAVAID, this sort of clearance is REQUIRED. I use it with /G aircraft too, when clearing to a fix/NAVAID they may not have been expecting, so as to get them to turn toward it sooner instead of fumbling with their GPS on the last assigned heading. Absent this initial heading, /G aircraft my continue along several miles before turning. And /A or /U aircraft may NEVER turn because they have no way of receiving the assigned NAVAID yet!

e. Provide radar navigational guidance until the
aircraft is:
1. Established within the airspace to be
protected for the nonradar route to be flown, or
2. On a heading that will, within a reasonable
distance, intercept the nonradar route to be flown, and
3. Informed of its position unless the aircraft is
RNAV, FMS, or DME equipped and being vectored
toward a VORTAC/TACAN or waypoint and within
the service volume of the NAVAID.
PHRASEOLOGY-
(Position with respect to course/fix along route),
RESUME OWN NAVIGATION,
or
FLY HEADING (degrees). WHEN ABLE, PROCEED
DIRECT (name of fix),
or
RESUME (name/numberFMSP/SID/transition/STAR/
procedure).

 

[msmspilot]

The controller might be a bit confused. What about weather avoidance? I hear "Fly heading XXX (or "Cleared to deviate XX degrees right/left of course), direct XXX when able" all the time.

No weather except some clouds.

This is pretty basic ATC stuff, unless there's a operational/equipment limitation that I'm not aware of, the controller should absolutely be able to give such a clearance. The correct phraseology is "When able, PROCEED direct <fix>." We use this all the time to get aircraft going in the direction of the fix/NAVAID they've been cleared to. It's very common for /A or /U because they may not yet be receiving the NAVAID. They are expected to fly the assigned heading until receiving the NAVAID, then proceed direct to the NAVAID. If they're outside of the operational limitation area of the NAVAID, this sort of clearance is REQUIRED. I use it with /G aircraft too, when clearing to a fix/NAVAID they may not have been expecting, so as to get them to turn toward it sooner instead of fumbling with their GPS on the last assigned heading. Absent this initial heading, /G aircraft my continue along several miles before turning. And /A or /U aircraft may NEVER turn because they have no way of receiving the assigned NAVAID yet!

Can't be an equipment problem because the other controllers at the facility give me the "fly heading, proceed direct" all the time.

You have confirmed what I thought and have posted the ATC guidance on the topic. I don't know what this guy is thinking, but I know not to argue on the radio.

Thanks for the help!