I agree with what you said, however, and I'm not telling you how to control in your airspace, but if it was me and a 4 degree turn posed a separation problem, I'd add a "no turns till in uncontrolled airspace/passing 17K" or something to that effect. CYA, if you know what I mean.

And make a position report BEFORE you come bombing down out of the flight levels!

Whatever, but if a 4 degree turn will compromise sep, I wouldn't leave it to chance. I don't want to be in some manager's office having to justify myself, proving it's someone elses fault. Some pilots could make that turn as a correction navigating off radio navaid. Not taking you to task, just not the way I'd do it.

ywg-atc wrote:Whatever, but if a 4 degree turn will compromise sep, I wouldn't leave it to chance. I don't want to be in some manager's office having to justify myself, proving it's someone elses fault. Some pilots could make that turn as a correction navigating off radio navaid. Not taking you to task, just not the way I'd do it.

That's not the point. They are not abiding by their ATC clearance. The pilots in question are either unfamiliar with the rules, or are willingly breaking them. We also see a/c proceeding to the IAF without clearance in controlled airspace. It may not be a big deal to them, but if I have to hold every pilot's hand to ensure they do their job and abide by the CARS instead of trusting they know what they are doing, the amount of traffic I can handle will definitely go down.

As cpl_atc stated, adding ("No turns until...") may seem like a good idea, but it's just reinforcing their erroneous behaviour.

As far as it being a correction for a /S equipped a/c navigating off of a NAVAID, if you have dealt with many /S equipped a/c you would know that anytime you are running something tight, you have to assign them a heading. To do otherwise would be insane with the amount these a/c drift off track. (But that's another topic)

So zzjayca how is "you have to assign them a heading" any different then "no turns until..."? I'm essentially assigning them their present heading until clear of controlled.

I also don't believe that I'm "reinforcing erroneous behaviour." That would be seeing it, saying nothing, and allowing it to happen. I'm ensuring it doesn't happen in the first place. You can accuse me of over controlling. I highly doubt my "no turns" clause is telling the pilot that they could've proceded direct to XXXXX fix otherwise.

BTW, I agree with everything you guys say in terms of the rules and what the pilot should do, but if it's that close that a small turn would be a problem, this is what I would do, rules or no rules. I guess I'd rather "over control" then be in an investigation pointing fingers at everyone else.

From a pilots perspective, if you tell me "no turns until" or "maintain present heading" I will do the same thing, not turn. If you tell me to maintain present track, then I will correct for wind to maintain the present track that I am on.

This is a good post though, as I have seen alot of pilots doing this, and I have nt been exactly sure what the rules were on it.

Cheers


Apache

Maybe I'm missing the point in some of the replies.

If the original clearance I receive at the start of my flight is "Cleared to the CXXX airport via..." and no further clearances are received until I get "Cleared to depart high level controlled airspace in the vicinity of CXXX", then why would I think that authorizes me to make a turn to proceed to an IAF or some other point?

I do not and would not proceed to another point until clear of controlled airspace. If you want to do that, ask for it, and GET A CLEARANCE.

RNAV, you're missing the point because pilots like you aren't the problem. It's the one's that go direct to the FAF, and other such fixes, without asking first. It happens more often then you might think.

What if the clearance is "cleared out of controlled airspace in the vicinity of XXXX airport." Does the "in the vicinity of" allow for heading to the IAF before vertically exiting controlled airspace?

What if the clearance is "cleared out of controlled airspace in the vicinity of XXXX airport." Does the "in the vicinity of" allow for heading to the IAF before vertically exiting controlled airspace?

Heading is at your discretion on this one. If the controller required you to exit controlled outspace at a specific point or altitude it would have been included in the clearance.

"exit controlled at 50 or above"
"exit controlled on the XXX 270 radial"
"exit controlled on your present heading/track"