Radar Vectors, Direct

[Charan Kumar]

Chris is probably going to see this post and my name and think, "Didn't I already tell this guy?". Sorry Chris, I am getting all worked up on this particular phraseology.

Pilot redirects, and you need to give the pilot an amended clearance. Airport is in your airspace. If there is an approach procedure available and the pilot is near one, I can request the pilot if they have the approach and give it to them. But a very frequently used clearance on VATSIM is, "Cleared to destination, present position, radar vectors direct" :eek:. This clearance also is popular when pilots fly between airports with no route in the FP over a very short distance or new pilots who may not be comfortable with having to talk to ATC, manage their acft and navigate it by themselves too (been there).

I asked a r/w controller and he verified they do use this phraseology in r/w, I think he said "as long as it gets the job done." But as for the validity, we do know 7110 doesn't have it (or does it?)

I have tried to pick a VOR near the airport so I can say "r/v VOR, direct", but that isn't always possible.

So, is it ok to use this on VATSIM? If not, will it's use cause problems? What's your opinion (once again sorry Chris :o)? And what's advised?

Cheers!!

[Steffen Franz]

"as long as it gets the job done."

that's my answer ;) and I'm sticking to it.

[Charan Kumar]

Yup, that's what I am planning to do to :) I discussed with Chuck on TS about this, he didn't find anything really objectionable about it. MM was also present, but wasn't sure if he was listening to our conversation.

[Mike Fries]

I'm wondering if "cleared to xxx airport via radar vectors" would suffice

[Chris Virgilio]

You knew this was coming...

First, it is important to point out that "radar vectors direct" is completely non-standard phraseology. It isn't provided for anywhere in the 7110.65. More importantly, the two key terms in use, "radar vectors" and "direct", negate one another. There is no such thing as a radar vector that sends someone direct to anywhere. The whole point of radar vectors is that you can't possibly send someone direct somewhere. If you want someone to cut a corner and go direct to a fix, just tell them to go direct to a fix. If you are radar vectoring someone to join an approach, you say "radar vectors ILS rwy 28L approach". That is what is provided for in the 7110.65. So that's the first couple of things.

1. It's non-standard phraseology that is not provided for in the 7110.65.
2. The two terms totally negate each other in a clearance.
3. The two terms used together like this cause confusion. Is it radar vectors, or is it direct?

Furthermore, and this isn't for me to decide, but we have to decide as an ARTCC what exactly we're trying to do here. If we are going to be of the practice where using standard phraseology isn't important, than just say that. No more facade of trying to do things by the book. To my knowledge, we've always trained by the 7110.65, which is exactly the expectations bestowed upon any FAA Trainee as well. The 7110.6 is the ONLY thing we actually have to go by in terms of our training. It's the only official phraseology document that everyone, everywhere has access to. Why would you start using something else?

What is the point of even having a training program in the end if we're just going to say that there's nothing wrong with non-standard phraseology? That seems to be a little hypocritical.

[Charan Kumar]

You knew this was coming...Absolutely, actually I was asking for it :D


First, it is important to point out that "radar vectors direct" is completely non-standard phraseology. It isn't provided for anywhere in the 7110.65.This we agreed on. The phrase was a result of joining two standard phrases incorrectly, not a coining of a new one by itself. The fact that there would radar vectoring and there is no arrival procedure or set path between current position and the airport is what causes the confusing phraseology. but..


More importantly, the two key terms in use, "radar vectors" and "direct", negate one another. There is no such thing as a radar vector that sends someone direct to anywhere. The whole point of radar vectors is that you can't possibly send someone direct somewhere. If you want someone to cut a corner and go direct to a fix, just tell them to go direct to a fix....now that you say you it like that, I agree it doesn't make any sense. I won't use it going fwd.

However...

If you are radar vectoring someone to join an approach, you say "radar vectors ILS rwy 28L approach". That is what is provided for in the 7110.65. So that's the first couple of things. ...when a pilot is still more than 100 miles away from the airport or if other controllers are online, how can I assign an approach. In situations I can't assign an approach, what would be the phraseology? Can we use what Mike says...


I'm wondering if "cleared to xxx airport via radar vectors" would suffice



Furthermore, and this isn't for me to decide, but we have to decide as an ARTCC what exactly we're trying to do here. If we are going to be of the practice where using standard phraseology isn't important, than just say that. No more facade of trying to do things by the book. To my knowledge, we've always trained by the 7110.65, which is exactly the expectations bestowed upon any FAA Trainee as well. The 7110.6 is the ONLY thing we actually have to go by in terms of our training. It's the only official phraseology document that everyone, everywhere has access to. Why would you start using something else?

What is the point of even having a training program in the end if we're just going to say that there's nothing wrong with non-standard phraseology? That seems to be a little hypocritical.No, we don't want to go to non-standard phraseology and that was the point of this qn, to find out how non-standard it was. Your explanation was pretty clear.

Also a reason for the qn, since the entire 7110 will never apply to VATSIM due to a lack of number of things, and a single controller will handle 250 mile radius airspace providing twr svcs for 100+ airports, we sometimes have to, I don't want to say bend, stretch or trim the rules to fit our needs. We will still continue training based on 7110 only unless I am told otherwise :)

Cheers and thanks for the answer!! And I will watch this for further discussions/opinions!

[Chris Virgilio]

I'm glad you brought up that last bit, Charan. One thing that I like to do when controlling, be it alone on Oakland Center or with company, is operate as if all the other facilities are still online. I do everything myself, obviously, but all descents and climbs are executed as if Nor Cal is online, as if SFO twr is online, etc. The only difference is that I'm not giving com changes. That way it doesn't matter if I'm controlling all of the West Coast of just BSR to PRB. It's a good way to make sure you know your LOAs also :)

[David Carman]

I'm with Mike, "Cleared to XXX via radar vectors." I've heard this several times flying in real life, and that's how I was taught to do pop-up IFR clearances at school when it was too short to give an actual route.