Divergence

bravoindia said:

first aircraft (C182) direct VOR (HDG 26 and second aircraft (CRJ9) Rwy HDG 243. It didn’t work mostly because of how the skyline tracked

Click to expand...

When the CRJ was switched to departure could tower/approach verify that the C182 was direct the VOR? Because just issuing a "proceed direct" somewhere doesn't mean that any turn has been started.
When giving "proceed direct" and you're counting on divergence in a short time, you should always give "turn right/left heading xxx, when able direct" because the time it takes to actually get started direct to a fix can drastically vary pilot to pilot/nav equipment.

To add to Stinger I have seen a few aircraft fly odd routes before their computers set them direct. One of the SKWs computer was positioning the aircraft in between the airport and the fix to intercept, cause it to veer a ways off course. Heading and direct when able sounds like a good way to ensure it.

Stinger said:

When the CRJ was switched to departure could tower/approach verify that the C182 was direct the VOR? Because just issuing a "proceed direct" somewhere doesn't mean that any turn has been started.
When giving "proceed direct" and you're counting on divergence in a short time, you should always give "turn right/left heading xxx, when able direct" because the time it takes to actually get started direct to a fix can drastically vary pilot to pilot/nav equipment.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of the above. That being said what happened in this situation, it was VMC turn observed out the window and downstairs but it seemed as if the pilot went a bit too far and when correcting they did a bit of “honing” to the target and ended up tracking a 250 while correcting back to the VOR. Prompting radar controller to see it and save it with a heading prior to loss. I think we all at least on this thread have had a mutual common sense approach to this rule and should keep it up. Just good dialogue from a real world situation that should not have happened due to a multitude of factors I’ll keep to myself. Oh and my opinions and posts don’t reflect that of the FAA. Recurrent training briefings said it’s good to say that to stay clean.

that1guy said:

Can divergence be applied if one aircraft is on a visual approach? My facility is split 50/50 on this argument.

Click to expand...

that1guy said:

Can divergence be applied if one aircraft is on a visual approach? My facility is split 50/50 on this argument.

Click to expand...

that1guy said:

Can divergence be applied if one aircraft is on a visual approach? My facility is split 50/50 on this argument.

Click to expand...

Course is not necessarily a vector. It's the intended directing of flight. So as long as you have some other approved separation prior I believe you are fine according to 5-5-7. The only thing you have ensure is that targets or slashes don't touch.

bravoindia said:

It was in a briefing because of a situation that needed looked at. I’ll try to get an answer from the QCG. I use fixes for overflights all the time esp when an aircraft is on an airway. If I know the radial the aircraft is on I’ll just use 20 degrees for a little extra room but it helps me climb thru or descend thru without gaining 3 miles or stopping someone at an intermediate altitude. The way it was briefed was that for initial separation ( in this case off the runway ) headings must be used. And to me that contradicts the word “courses” in the .65

Click to expand...

The 5-5-7 15 degree rule is a radar function. Until that a/c is radar identified you may have to use some other form

ApexPredator said:

Course is not necessarily a vector. It's the intended directing of flight. So as long as you have some other approved separation prior I believe you are fine according to 5-5-7. The only thing you have ensure is that targets or slashes don't touch.

The 5-5-7 15 degree rule is a radar function. Until that a/c is radar identified you may have to use some other form

Click to expand...

5-8-2 and 5-8-3 covers that.