PilotEdge Forums

Good job Anthony - especially the last few sentences. There's real world experience that some of us have that which help decode some of .65.

I think the issue here is people feel the need to assume and interpret. We can't assume that they "meant" it to be said.

In the list posted above of 7110 references, there is not one example that applies to a controller issuing a lateral vector to join/intercept a published route/airway/radial/localizer/course.

However, there are examples throughout the 7110 where you must use something specific... so for example using intercept for an overshoot on final is explicitly wrong:

PHRASEOLOGY−
YOU HAVE CROSSED THE FINAL APPROACH
COURSE. TURN (left/right) IMMEDIATELY AND
RETURN TO THE FINAL APPROACH COURSE.

That being said, the only defined phraseology for a join/intercept situation is:

Heading (5-6-2-a-1)
Reason for Vector (5-6-2-b)
Altitude to Maintain (5-6-2-c)
Position and Instruction to resume own navigation (5-1-12 & 5-6-2-e-3)


So once the first three requirements are met, the pilot would hear:

(Number of miles) MILES (direction) OF (fix, airway, or location), RESUME OWN NAVIGATION,


That situation is from the olden days of 'slant A' radar and hasn't been used in years. For the rest, it is not defined.

jx_ wrote:I think the issue here is people feel the need to assume and interpret. We can't assume that they "meant" it to be said.

If by “they” you mean the F.A.A., then I respectfully disagree.
Earlier I wrote that the old geezers who taught me said, “Join airways and routes, intercept radials and final approach courses.”
Where did they get that maxim?

Anthony alluded to it…
1-2-5
g. The annotation PHRASEOLOGY denotes the prescribed words and/or phrases to be used in communications.
h. The annotation EXAMPLE provides a sample of the way the prescribed phraseology associated with the preceding paragraph(s) will be used.
If the preceding paragraph(s) does (do) not include specific prescribed phraseology, the EXAMPLE merely denotes suggested words and/or phrases that may be used in communications.
NOTE− The use of the exact text contained in an example not preceded with specific prescribed phraseology is not mandatory.
However, the words and/or phrases are expected, to the extent practical, to approximate those used in the example.

And here it is…
Join - In these examples the word “join” is associated with airway or route.

5-1-12:
CROSSING/JOINING/DEPARTING (airway or route).
5-4-11/e:
e. Aircraft assigned a heading until receiving a fix or joining a published route must be designated with assigned heading format followed by the fix or route.
5-4-11 Notes 2 and 3:
2. The inclusion of a /NAVAID, /waypoint, or /F indicates that the pilot has been authorized to deviate for weather and must rejoin the route at the next NAVAID, waypoint, or fix in the route of flight in accordance with the phraseology in paragraph 2-6-4.
3. The absence of a NAVAID, waypoint, or /F indicates that the pilot has been authorized to deviate for weather only, and the receiving controller must provide a clearance to rejoin the route in accordance with paragraph 2-1-15c.
8-9-7/a
a. Clear an aircraft to join an outer route of the composite route system at other than the normal entry point provided.

Intercept – In these examples the word “intercept” is associated with radials and final approach courses.
5-1-12/b
INTERCEPTING/CROSSING (name of NAVAID) (specified) RADIAL.
5-9-1 Intro
Except as provided in para 7−4−2, Vectors for Visual Approach, vector arriving aircraft to intercept the final approach course.
5-9-2
FINAL APPROACH COURSE NTERCEPTION
a. Assign headings that will permit final approach course interception on a track that does not exceed the interception angles specified in TBL 5−9−1.
5-9-4/b
b. Vector to intercept the final approach course if required.

Interestingly, the example you provided, (5-9-7/e/1,) only pertains to simultaneous approaches. In that case, “intercept” would, indeed, be wrong. But for all others, intercept is correct:
5-9-2/b If deviations from the final approach course are observed after initial course interception, apply the following:
1. Outside the approach gate: apply procedures in accordance with subpara a, if necessary, vector the aircraft for another approach.
2. Inside the approach gate: inform the pilot of the aircraft’s position and ask intentions.
PHRASEOLOGY−
(Ident) (distance) MILE(S) FROM THE AIRPORT,
(distance) MILE(S) RIGHT/LEFT OF COURSE, SAY INTENTIONS.
NOTE- The intent is to provide for a track course intercept angle judged by the controller to be no greater than specified by this procedure.

But why use “join” or, “intercept?” Because those are the words specifically associated with a particular task; namely airways and routes, and radials and final approach courses respectively.
If it was intended that a controller could use any verb, then any verb should do.
Turn right heading 1-5-0 link the localizer.
Turn left heading 2-2-0 combine with Victor 23.
But that’s neither the intent nor the correct interpretation. And the geezers who taught me could back it up with the 7110.
If they were training me and I said, “…turn right heading…join the localizer…” They would have written me up for bad phraseology. (I do the same with my trainees today.)

Anthony Santanastaso wrote:With a document that contains so much information, it stands to reason that perhaps not everything will be spelled out in an A-to-B direct kind of way.
I have found, over the course of time studying, teaching, and practicing many of the federal documents, that rationalizing and understanding the contents requires a little more investigative work to see what lies between the printed words.

I think the result of this investigative work from the geezers resulted in the correct use of “join” and “intercept.”

respectfully (you're one of my favorite pilots!), you're using your own method of interpretation here, and not the one that governs the document.

For example, every piece of phraseology in 5-1-12 is only applicable when giving position reports. There are 5 valid ways to do that, including "Radar contact intercepting the Filmore 3-1-0 radial." That is the intended use of the word 'intercept' in 5-1-12... It's not there to 'imply' how to properly issue radar vectors to an airway/radial etc.


If you personally write up trainees, that's fine, you're paid and authorized to do so, but I am personally aware of several major facilities that don't. It's a 20 year long discussion because it's legal. Some facilities allow it, and some, for the exact cultural reasons you've pointed out, don't.

"The use of the exact text contained in an example not preceded with specific prescribed phraseology is not
mandatory. However, the words and/or phrases are expected, to the extent practical, to approximate those used
in the example."

It doesn't get any clearer. In the entire 7110, there is not one single case where join or intercept is annotated as PHRASEOLOGY, EXAMPLE, or 'associated' in any way with issuing a radar vector to an aircraft; and that's the key distinction.

Finally, the 7110 is a legal document where the document itself (and most importantly, the part that is not contained within the document, law contained within the US Code) dictates the rules for interpretation. If we interpret things outside of what is allowed by US Contract Law, then we are changing the meaning to fit our own comprehension. A judge doesn't interpret a document willy-nilly-off-the-cuff. He is legally obligated to follow a precise system of language and guidance in his interpretation of legal documents and so must we in ours.

Interesting thoughts, all.

I will finally add that I will defer to my experienced teachers in ATC school that it's "intercept...localizer" and "join...airway." How they arrived at that, if it's being noted that there is no valid answer, is probably a matter of common workplace practice that has been accepted as obvious truth. I found the following (quite emphatic) opinion written by a very experienced, retired controller about the distinction between "intercept" and "join" to be quite interesting (if not, a bit entertaining) - http://www.thebigskytheory.com/intercept.shtml. The author seems quite determined to lay the debate to rest!

I do agree with the aforementioned author in that every example from almost every primary source that has to do with radials and glideslipes specifically uses the term "intercept" and not join. Perhaps this is why teachers at OKC and elsewhere reinforced the notion that each term had specific meanings and uses. I think there are several other examples that are similar, but I think this may be a case of where experience outweighs the simple reading of material. Sometimes (and I can attest to this 100%) the true artistry and mastery of a job can only be envisioned through experience and practice and is often the result of the reasonable and acceptable amplification of a baseline of rules. True, it's the baseline of rules by which we are ultimately governed in the court of law, but it's the added nuances that, for better or for worse, have been handed down after countless hours and generations of experience that make a profession like ATC a very human and passionate experience. Heck, just think how many hours we've spent discussing this very matter! If it weren't for the additive human element, what would drive our passion for this profession, or make us want to communicate about it amongst each other?

Perhaps the opening paragraph within 7110.65 is worth noting:

This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by personnel providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that
pertain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations not covered by it.

Maybe their best judgement has been shaped by the very same hours and experiences of their teachers?

Harold actually may have had the matter finalized all along:

HRutila wrote:The battle between "intercept" and "join" is an internal FAA disagreement that exists between facilities and controllers. The long-standing opinion is that "intercept" is the "proper" phraseology to be used in order to instruct aircraft to navigate laterally along a localizer signal. But anyone who flies in the NAS regularly knows that "join" is used equally as much, if not more than "join," in this context.

Also, this particular post seems to corroborate Harold's original opinion: http://cockpitintelligence.blogspot.com ... lizer.html

Could it actually boil down to, "to each their own," where instead of "their" being an individual, it's an entire FAA facility?

Here is my attempt to finalize the thoughts about this subject (as I see this going in circles):

• 1. Pilots should use common sense. Whether they hear "join" or "intercept," it functionally means the same thing: a lateral instruction.
  2. Controllers should aim for consistency, so to help their pilots better understand their requests or to just perhaps align themselves with their facility's standards.
  3. Mutual acceptance of demonstrable experience - trust in our teachers that what has worked will continue to work until such time a valid alteration is introduced.
  4. Healthy interpretation followed by discussion leads to better understanding. If not anything else, this post has helped us to all gain insight to things we did not previously know or believe.

You see, it's a topic like this that makes me tired and want to sleep. Oh wait, it's 4:15 AM! What am I doing up in the first place!?

jx_ wrote:respectfully (you're one of my favorite pilots...

That was a very nice compliment. Thank you It made my day.
Maybe I'm so bent on "join" or "intercept" out of fear. When I was trained, if I screwed the pooch, I was taken out to the woodshed. They, (or we,) don't do that anymore.
As a pilot, when I hear "join," I reply with join. It should be no different when I'm on the other side of the mic.
And you're right, it is a long-standing discussion that may very well be cultural and without any definitive solution.
I'm glad it came up.

For the record, I actually agree that the phraseology should be "intercept" when it comes to localizers. I simply disagree with the idea that pilots should question an instruction to "join the localizer," in keeping the best interests of the pilots at heart. There is a lot that can go wrong when pilots start telling the controllers how to do their job. (Of course, we all remember this guy.)

HRutila wrote:For the record, I actually agree that the phraseology should be "intercept" when it comes to localizers. I simply disagree with the idea that pilots should question an instruction to "join the localizer," in keeping the best interests of the pilots at heart. There is a lot that can go wrong when pilots start telling the controllers how to do their job. (Of course, we all remember this guy.)

I agree with that. You're going to hear plenty of "join the localizer" in real life.