"...Radar Vectors XYZ, Direct"

[Mark Hargrove]

I received a departure clearance out of KSNA on Saturday that contained the phraseology "...fly heading 220, radar vectors to Seal Beach VOR, direct." I've heard this same phraseology before in this and other contexts and it's always bugged me, but I never remembered to ask about it until now. It's even in the transcript for the I-01 rating.

The terms "radar vectors" and "direct" in the same instruction have never made sense to me -- they actually seem contradictory. Which is it? Radar vectors to the fix, or direct to the fix? How can it be both?

I spent a good 30 minutes searching through the ATC procedures and phraseology manual (7110.65, chapter 5) and could not find any examples of this particular phraseology.

It seems to me that if we're issued a heading and told that it's a vector to somewhere specific, that's all we need to know. When a controller is ready for us to proceed direct to the fix -- well -- then they'll tell us that: "Cessna 123AB, proceed direct SLI". Indeed, until they tell us that (or give us a new heading), we're just going to motor along on the assigned heading anyway. If we don't hear anything for a long time and can't re-establish comms, we going direct to the fix anyway as part of the lost comms procedure since that was the last "expect" thing we were told (at least, I think we are -- we haven't had a"Lost Comms" workshop yet....).

If the use of the word "direct" is deliberate, what is the difference in meaning between "fly heading XXX, radar vectors YYY" and "fly heading XXX, radar vectors YYY, direct"? Does the first phrase allow us to meander around for a while before heading to YYY in case of lost comms?

-M.

[Kevin_atc]

Hey Mark,

You're a little bit confused on the clearance you're being issued. If you are getting a round-robin IFR clearance (KSNA>KSNA), the clearance would be something like "Cleared to KSNA via fly heading 220, radar vectors SLI, direct." This should not be confused with "Cleared to KSNA via fly heading 220, radar vectors direct SLI." See the difference?

The word "direct" in my first example (and also in the example you gave in your initial post) refers to the clearance limit. This means that if you were to not get any instructions in regards to your heading and you hit SLI, you are to go DIRECT KSNA. That's what "direct" means in the clearance. If you were not to hear "direct" then your clearance limit would just be SLI and you would have to hold over SLI if you didn't get any other instruction prior to SLI.

So, moral of the story is to pay very close attention to where in the clearance "direct" is being said.

[Mark Hargrove]

You're right -- I am confused. I now don't think I understand what a clearance limit is.

I thought my clearance limit was specified the moment the controller said "cleared to the John Wayne airport", and that everything after that was routing. You're telling me that's not true? If my clearance limit was SLI, wouldn't I be "cleared to the Seal Beach VOR", rather than "cleared to KSNA"? How can "cleared to KSNA via ... radar vectors direct SLI" even be a legal clearance? Which is it? Am I cleared to KSNA or am I cleared to SLI in that particular phrasing?

Yes, I am now massively confused.

I think I see what you're saying about the first instance -- that "direct" means "direct KSNA after SLI", not "direct SLI" -- but I don't honestly see what information that adds that I didn't already have. It's only relevant in a lost comms situation anyway (as far as I understand), and it doesn't seem to actually mean anything. I thought it was already understood that if I was "cleared to KSNA" as part of my original clearance, then lost comms immediately after takeoff I'd squawk 7600, fly direct to SLI (because it was given as my most recent "expect" advisory), choose an approach that's flyable from SLI, make my way to the IAF, hold at the IAF (or perhaps some other point as designated by the approach plate) until I reached the appropriate filed enroute time to start the approach, then fly the approach.

Since the overriding departure instruction is "fly heading 220", I'm not doing anything else anyway until I get another ATC instruction OR until I decide I've lost comms.

Are you saying that if the word "direct" wasn't added at the end of the routing it would not be a valid clearance (based on ATC phraseology rules)?

-M.

[Anthony Santanastaso]

Mark,

In order to (hopefully) clear your confusion, I'm going to invite you to think outside the box.

First, let's say you filed a route in which the beginning of it requires an amendment. It is necessary for ATC to link the amended routing to your previous one in order to validate "then as filed."

For example, from JFK to BOS you file BDR ORW PVD INNDY. I want you to fly to MERIT instead of BDR so in my clearance I will say "...radar vectors to MERIT direct ORW then as filed." Follow?

What if I need to give you a full route clearance? Well, if that's correct, then the only piece of information you filed that is "linkable" would be the destination airport. My phraseology would now be "...radar vectors to MERIT direct ORW direct PVD direct INNDY direct Boston Airport."

Furthermore, if I assign you an arrival, I do not have to say "direct" because that is part of the published procedure.

Does this help?

Anthony

(BTW - it's hidden in 7110.65. Check out http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat ... 402.html.1, especially 4-2-5.)

[Mark Hargrove]

Mark,

In order to (hopefully) clear your confusion, I'm going to invite you to think outside the box.

First, let's say you filed a route in which the beginning of it requires an amendment. It is necessary for ATC to link the amended routing to your previous one in order to validate "then as filed."

For example, from JFK to BOS you file BDR ORW PVD INNDY. I want you to fly to MERIT instead of BDR so in my clearance I will say "...radar vectors to MERIT direct ORW then as filed." Follow?

Yes, I follow -- but see below.

What if I need to give you a full route clearance? Well, if that's correct, then the only piece of information you filed that is "linkable" would be the destination airport. My phraseology would now be "...radar vectors to MERIT direct ORW direct PVD direct INNDY direct Boston Airport."

I just listened to 20 minutes or so of real-world recorded clearances from KRNO (LiveATC.net has some archived IFR clearance recordings). After listening to perhaps 20-25 clearances, many of which were of exactly the format you show above (i.e., "Cleared to <some airport>, RENO4 departure, via flying heading XXX, radar vectors <fix name>, then as filed". Often, it was "...radar vectors <fix name> <fix name> <fix name> <jetway>, then as filed"). Never once did a controller use the word 'direct' in any part of the original departure clearance, even when multiple fixes were given as part of the routing.

(BTW - it's hidden in 7110.65. Check out http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat ... 402.html.1, especially 4-2-5.)

4-2-5 applies to amended clearances and makes complete sense in that context. I've been given a shortcut with phrase "proceed direct XXX, resume the departure" or "proceed direct YYY, rest of route unchanged".

I'm not at all trying to be argumentative or contrary -- I'm just trying to understand if the word "direct" in an original departure clearance changes what I'm supposed to do vs. the same clearance without the word "direct", and I'm especially trying to understand what it means when it is "dangling" at the end of the clearance.

ATC phrases are generally extremely concise, carefully chosen, and tell the pilot unambiguously what needs to be done. "Direct <fix name>" as an amendment is unambiguous. "...Radar vector SLI, direct" is ambiguous (to me). 'Direct' to what? In the KSNA --> KSNA case, I'm interpreting the 'dangling direct' from what's been said so far to mean "direct KSNA". So why not just say that? Or why not say "radar vectors SLI, then as filed"?

Is the general rule that a dangling 'Direct' means "then direct to the next fix in your flight plan after the fix you're being vectored to"?


-M.

[jtek]

I believe the general rule is that a dangling 'direct' means "direct to your destination," usually via an IAP. If the controller wanted you to go to the next fix in your flight plan, the wording is "then as filed."

Also, I believe you will only hear a dangling "direct" if the last fix in the route is an IAF or feeder for at least one approach to the airport, giving you a great option for lost comms.

[Anthony Santanastaso]

What if I need to give you a full route clearance? Well, if that's correct, then the only piece of information you filed that is "linkable" would be the destination airport. My phraseology would now be "...radar vectors to MERIT direct ORW direct PVD direct INNDY direct Boston Airport.

I've used the term direct to specify that the route does not follow along any airways.

Do you understand what I said above about how route amendments work and the use of direct? If I have to give you a full route clearance, then in actuality I need to link it to your clearance limit by saying direct whatever that limit is. The phraseology should be "direct XYZ airport."

[Ryan B]

I believe the general rule is that a dangling 'direct' means "direct to your destination," usually via an IAP. If the controller wanted you to go to the next fix in your flight plan, the wording is "then as filed."

Also, I believe you will only hear a dangling "direct" if the last fix in the route is an IAF or feeder for at least one approach to the airport, giving you a great option for lost comms.

Bingo.

If you hear "direct" after something it means after the last assigned fix you'll proceed direct to your destination. On the flight strip it would look like KSNA SLI KSNA. There's not really a way to enter radar vectors they just say that because they're giving you an initial heading to fly, then you can expect vectors to SLI, thence...direct KSNA (via lost comms procedures).

[julio.elizalde]

Kevin made a very important point. This is extraordinarily subtle phraseology, and you need to be very aware of what the controller is permitting you to do.

When a controller uses the word direct with nothing after it at the end of a route, it implies direct to the flight plan clearance limit, otherwise they would specify something different.

In the case of KSNA SLI KSNA - Cleared to the John Wayne Airport [clearance limit], radar vectors SLI, direct [to the clearance limit].

I would also like to highlight another another subtlety used with uncontrolled airports. Say if you're flying KAVX SXC KAVX, the controller would read the following clearance: "Cleared from the Avalon airport to the Avalon airport via SXC direct." The word via gives the pilot permission to self navigate to SXC for safety and terrain/obstacle avoidance. If ATC used the word "direct," then you would basically be required to turn direct SXC once airborne which could turn you directly into an obstacle or terrain. As you can see, switching out "direct" for "via" completely changes the expectations of the pilot.

Great thread.

[Mark Hargrove]

When a controller uses the word direct with nothing after it at the end of a route, it implies direct to the flight plan clearance limit, otherwise they would specify something different.

In the case of KSNA SLI KSNA - Cleared to the John Wayne Airport [clearance limit], radar vectors SLI, direct [to the clearance limit].

Now I think I get it (and thanks to everybody for being so patient!). Let me test my understanding, though, before I do something dumb in the virtual air:

If I were to file the route "KSNA SLI POM KSNA" , but the clearance I got was "cleared to KSNA via fly heading 220 vectors SLI, direct" -- then (in the case of lost comms) would I be expected to fly to SLI, then skip POM and start my approach from SLI (as a feeder for SAGER), or would I be expected to continue to POM (as an IAF for KSNA that's on my route)?

Based upon your definition above I think I'd be expected to start the approach from SLI-->SAGER, rather than continuing to POM (because that is the most 'direct' to my clearance limit). Yes? No?

-M.