"Cleared direct" vs. "Proceed direct"

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

I've seen a few threads in the past where the phraseology of "cleared direct" versus "proceed direct" was discussed, and most of them ended with people being unsure. From what I gather, "cleared direct" is in the 7110.65, although "proceed direct" is generally accepted as-well. Has anyone heard/learned anything otherwise lately?

 

Listening to LiveATC, I hear them instructing aircraft in both ways, so there must be some degree of acceptance to it. Just curious if anyone does it one way over another for any specific reasons?

 

----------

 

Disclaimer: This is not meant to relay any form of a 'mandate' or requirement on any controllers to use this phraseology. The views expressed in this thread are solely that of the members, and do not necessarily reflect their real-world or virtual backgrounds. No 14-year-old noobs were harmed in the creation of this thread.

[Alex Bailey 969331]

I've heard both real world on Miami Center, Tampa APP, and Fort Myers APP.

[Stephen Sculley-Beaman]

Ditto. I've heard both countless times on TPA

[Steven Perry]

Both are in the 7110.65 and there is no irrefutable distinction between the two.

 

My opinion:

"Cleared direct" implies a change in cleared route. Use when giving a shortcut (byp[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing a waypoint) or issuing the first waypoint of a new route.

"Proceed direct" implies no change in cleared route. Use when terminating deviations, vectors, etc.

[Justin A. Martin]

Exactly what Mr. Perry said is what I go by. When I got my tour of ZDC... Mr. Marc Glorioso's co-worker (Amber, I believe) told me that cleared direct refers to ammending a route. If you say cleared direct to a point that is NOT in their flight plan, they are not expected to resume their route after what they are cleared direct. If you say "Cleared direct Montebello" and MOL is in their flight plan, they just skip all the points before MOL and resume the FP after MOL. She said that "Cleared direct XXX, rest of route unchanged" is okay but it's only 100% necessary if you are giving the aircraft a complete routeing change.

 

If you are clearing an aircraft to their first point, you should say "Proceed direct XXX", however cleared direct is not incorrect if it is the first waypoint or said waypoint is in the aircraft's flight plan...

 

Justin

[Andrew Doubleday]

Justin hit it right on...

 

How we're taught at school is the same. "Proceed direct XXX" for the radar vectored departures to the initial fix... "cleared direct XXX" when clearing an aircraft to a point further down in there strip.

 

 

-AJ

[Alex Bailey 969331]

Justin hit it right on...

 

How we're taught at school is the same. "Proceed direct XXX" for the radar vectored departures to the initial fix... "cleared direct XXX" when clearing an aircraft to a point further down in there strip.

 

 

-AJ

 

I never looked into it in depth like this, but after looking back on my flights this is how it always was. Out of KAPF, RSW_APP would give us "Proceed".

[Gerry Hattendorf 935415]

If it makes any sense, "cleared direct XXX" implies a new route clearance limit, whereas "proceed direct" is a short-cut to said navaid/fix.

 

If the pilot was to go NORDO (lost comms) the "cleared direct XXX" without affirmation of the rest of the route could be misconstrued as the clearance limit, unless the controller explicitly said "cleared direct XXX, then resume own navigation".

 

The "proceed direct" seems to be a verbal shorthand as (RW) there wouldn't be any confusion what's expected of the pilot, as last thing you want them to do is go NORDO and HOLD over the last "cleared direct XXX" instruction!

[Keith Smith]

If it makes any sense, "cleared direct XXX" implies a new route clearance limit, whereas "proceed direct" is a short-cut to said navaid/fix.

 

GH, I do not agree. If your [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned route is LAXX5.DAG.CLARR2 with a clearance limit of KLAS, you takeoff, sit on the 220 heading as per the dep, awaiting vectors, and hear this... "turn left hdg 180..." and then later "cleared direct DAG," are you really thinking that you're no longer cleared to KLAS, but are now supposed to hold at DAG unless you hear otherwise?

 

I generally use "cleared direct xxx" when I need someone to go to a fix/VOR, be it a short cut (skipping other waypoints that proceeded this one on the originally cleared route), or otherwise.

 

I use "proceed direct" only as part of the following phraseology: "fly hdg 080, proceed direct SLI when able" if I need them pointed towards SLI right now, and then direct to it when they can get it set up (useful if you have a stream of vectored departures, and you don't want a great deal of variance in the ground tracks, since some pilots will take upwards of 10-15 miles to actually proceed direct).

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

Thanks for all the responses!

[Alan Hensley 950569]

just to add. In my whole career I don't remember ever saying resume own navigation, not to say it is wrong at all, it was always "cleared direct XXX, rest of route unchanged".

[Wayne Conrad 989233]

Apologies for the thread necromancy. But... Gerry, Would you accept a change of clearance limit without an EFC?

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

I use "proceed direct" only as part of the following phraseology: "fly hdg 080, proceed direct SLI when able" if I need them pointed towards SLI right now, and then direct to it when they can get it set up [...]

 

Interesting discussion. I have absolutely no clue of the real world implications but I know the phraseology I use in this same scenario (almost the same) was taught to me by Jeff Clark as:

 

"Fly heading 080, receiving Seal Beach proceed direct". Same concept except this one was specifically used for aircraft without any fancy navigational computers (thus the receiving bit).

[Gerry Hattendorf 935415]

Well according to the .65

 

4-2-5. ROUTE OR ALTITUDE AMENDMENTS

 

a. Amend route of flight in a previously issued clearance by one of the following:

 

1. State which portion of the route is being amended and then state the amendment.

PHRASEOLOGY

CHANGE (portion of route) TO READ (new portion of route).

 

2. State the amendment to the route and then state that the rest of the route is unchanged.

PHRASEOLOGY-

(Amendment to route), REST OF ROUTE UNCHANGED.

 

3. Issue a clearance “directâ€

[Lakhbir Singh 936840]

I've seen a few threads in the past where the phraseology of "cleared direct" versus "proceed direct" was discussed, and most of them ended with people being unsure. From what I gather, "cleared direct" is in the 7110.65, although "proceed direct" is generally accepted as-well. Has anyone heard/learned anything otherwise lately?

 

Listening to LiveATC, I hear them instructing aircraft in both ways, so there must be some degree of acceptance to it. Just curious if anyone does it one way over another for any specific reasons?

 

----------

 

Disclaimer: This is not meant to relay any form of a 'mandate' or requirement on any controllers to use this phraseology. The views expressed in this thread are solely that of the members, and do not necessarily reflect their real-world or virtual backgrounds. No 14-year-old noobs were harmed in the creation of this thread.

 

This is not meant to relay any form of a 'mandate' or requirement on any controllers to use this phraseology. The views expressed in this thread are solely that of the members, and do not necessarily reflect their real-world or virtual backgrounds. No 14-year-old noobs were harmed in the creation of this thread.

 

 

and you do know that i resigned? because of what you said in the email.

_________________

[Nate Johns]

There has been much talk about clearance limits in this thread, but no discussion of the phrase "cleared to" as opposed to "cleared direct." I understand the OP is discussing "cleared direct" vs. "proceed direct," but I think the "cleared to" clearance bears a little discussion here as well.

 

The specific term "cleared to" is how a clearance limit is actually changed. If one is on a flight (partially using Gerry's example) KORD ORD2 IOW TNP SEAVU1 KLAX, and you're climbing out of ORD nowhere near IOW, and ATC belts out "cleared direct TNP," neato, that's a nice shortcut. If a controller said "cleared to TNP," on the network here, I'd kind of [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume he meant "cleared direct" and just do it, but I'd prolly query that controller or someone down the line to ensure my flight plan still showed KLAX as my destination. If I enter ZLA airspace and I was told "cleared to TNP" then I'd pretty well believe that I'll be holding there, and I'd bother inquiring about my holding instructions. No, this is in no way a reflection or opinion on actual controller phraseology in any VATUSA ARTCC, my example is purely fictional.

 

The rest, I think, has been pretty well handled already. "Proceed direct" is a very limited use sort of phraseology, normally reserved for (as in Keith's example) vectors to a fix/NAVAID, or for weather deviations. The term "cleared direct" is more appropriate for IFR aircraft and is widely used and accepted. If a VFR aircraft is being vectored, or ATC has otherwise [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed navigational responsibility, "resume own navigation" is the best phraseology for them to avoid using the term "cleared" and implying that a VFR aircraft is now under IFR control.

 

I digress...

 

In short:

 

"Cleared to" changes the clearance limit of an aircraft, most often for holding or pilot-requested change of destination.

 

"Cleared direct" is (basically) phraseology for a shortcut, and as long as the fix you're cleared direct is on your flight plan route already, it's [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed you just continue the flight plan from there. If it's NOT, then the pilot really ought to inquire before plugging it in to their machine or turning.

 

"Proceed direct" is an overused piece of phraseology, often used where "cleared direct" is perfectly appropriate, but it certainly has its place and uses.

 

~Nate

 

PS - OMG, I injected my factually-based opinion again, will someone please flame me for old tyme's sake?

[Garry Morris 920567]

Nate, I can't believe you'd even post this tripe on the boards. You obviously have no idea what you are doing, you're lying about being a real world controller (I mean seriously, like you'd waste your time playing this game instead of relaxing after a hard day), and you aren't even correct when you post. Why do you even bother???

 

 

 

Just kidding of course.

 

Well, he asked for a flame. Incidentally, nothing above is true - I've even seen his ZAB badge real world.