“runway heading” just means that if you depart say runway 20 you fly a heading of 200.
Yes there will be wind drift but everybody airborne will get a similar drift and ATC in that case have radar otherwise they would not be issuing headings. I am not sure if headings can ever be issued in a procedural situation; I don’t think so… Flying a “heading” means you are being radar vectored and incidentally that is the only time when ATC are responsible for your obstacle clearance.
In “classical IFR” flying a magnetic track is impossible unless flying directly to/from a VOR or NDB.
Oops. I did not mean to open a can of worms, honestly.
@JasonC “Nothing odd” – if that were so, not many would care to comment – or what? :-) But I agree with your conclusion.
@acimha Well, the “maintain track” is there in the official R/T manual. I agree that I have never been told to “fly track xxx”, but some pilots claim they get that frequently. And I think the only flight in recent years I was not able to immediately fly a specified track was last summer in a local low level Piper Cub flight with open doors and a defunct altimeter.
@bosco Yes, I am sure he said maintain RUNWAY heading. I think “glitch” too – maybe an old habit. I somehow think it was a common term years back, until it was changed precisely because of the ambiguity.
@Peter Yes, everybody will get a similar drift from wind, if they handle it the same. They donot always, and airliners taking off from parallel runways have been crossing each others path and almost touching each other’s paint because of this.
I think that globally we have not agreed how to do it.
In the US, after departure you climb on runway heading IFR (and let the wind drift you wherever. But VFR you should turn into wind to maintain runway track). It is in the TERPS. (So in the US, it could actually make sense to “Maintain runway heading”)
In Europe, we fly according to PANS-OPS: After departure, track the centre line initally (so correct for wind – that is also what I was taught back in ’99).
Reportedly, in newer Boeing airliners the FMS knows which part of the world it is in so the autopilot steers accordingly in the departure – straight ahead drifting sideways in the US, and crabbing to maintain track in Europe :-)
The above is fairly consistent with discussions between pilots having trained for the IR in the US and in Europe, respectively.
As I understand it, when a procedural ATCO issues a “runway-track” or “runway-heading” departure and it is not a published procedure, then the departure is a visual one and the pilot must stay clear of terrain (obvious in VFR). That said, a “runway-heading” when the terrain is unusual may drift a light aircraft considerably and pose dangers. That’s why I would choose to issue a “runway-track” instead of a “runway-heading”. For a VFR flight maintaining track is more or less taught in training. I guess an IFR flight would use e.g. a navaid at the airport in order to maintain the track or use on-board equipment. But the departure remains a visual one and the terrain clearance rests with the pilot.
A track is not necessarily a magnetic track. ATC is perfectly allowed to include a “track made good” in a clearance. You can use dead reckoning nav. Accuracy is low, but if this was a problem, ATC would issue something different
“runway heading” just means that if you depart say runway 20 you fly a heading of 200.
Yes there will be wind drift but everybody airborne will get a similar drift and ATC in that case have radar otherwise they would not be issuing headings. I am not sure if headings can ever be issued in a procedural situation; I don’t think so… Flying a “heading” means you are being radar vectored and incidentally that is the only time when ATC are responsible for your obstacle clearance.
In “classical IFR” flying a magnetic track is impossible unless flying directly to/from a VOR or NDB.
Yes very good Peter, but that’s not what the OP was talking about….he was flying a SID to a waypoint which happened to be on the extended centerline and the ATC told him to maintain runway heading….the current ole five wisdom here is that he really meant keep going the way you’re going
[quote fixed]
A runway of course does not have a heading; its not going anwhere. The expression “maintain runway heading” is as old as the hills and really makes no sense however; what they mean is maintain a heading that equates to the runway centre line. After all, runway direction is only defined to the nearest 10 degees.
I would say that it was a mistake from the controller who meant to say present heading. If they said runway heading to me, I think I would find it odd enough to query it, and if they were still adamant about runway heading, I would turn to fly the runway heading. Maybe the reason could be that they have asked or are planning to ask the following departure to maintain runway heading, and they want you both on the same track. Obscure but would be one reason for it perhaps.
Indeed….turning right 20deg would probably have given the controller a WTF moment
is there a EU equivalent of the FAA pilot-controller glossary? In the US, fly runway heading means fly a heading, not a track. The pilot-controller glossary is unambiguous about this.
is there a EU equivalent of the FAA pilot-controller glossary?
Dream on Jason! 
Every country pretty much has its own style.
