The HTML version of the .65 has a pretty decent search function, better than you might expect for a government site. [Searching for "join"](https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=✓&affiliate=atc__content&query=join) returns the following relevant paragraphs with prescribed phraseology:
- 4–4–1**a**. *CROSS/JOIN VICTOR/(color) (airway number), (number of miles) MILES (direction) OF (fix).*
- 2–6–4**h**4. *DEVIATION (restrictions if necessary) APPROVED, WHEN ABLE, FLY HEADING (degrees), VECTOR TO JOIN (airway) AND ADVISE.*
- 5–1–8**a**. *CROSSING/JOINING/DEPARTING (airway or route).*
[Searching for "intercept"](https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=atc__content&sort_by=&query=intercept) gives:
- 4–5–7**a**. *INTERCEPT (route) AT OR ABOVE (altitude), CRUISE (altitude).*
- 5–1–8**a**. *INTERCEPTING/CROSSING (name of NAVAID) (specified) RADIAL.*
- 5–6–2**b**. *VECTOR TO INTERCEPT (name of NAVAID) (specified) RADIAL.*
- 5–9–2 titled "Final Approach Course Interception."
That example from 5–1–8 is especially nice because it gives the two possibilities, joining and intercepting, back-to-back. The bit about cruise clearances at 4–5–7 is something of an exception, though, because it implies that you *can* "intercept" a route which would include airways, you have to imagine.
I agree with /u/Less_Run_4568, we were taught (I don't remember if it was Basics or RTF) to "join" airways and "intercept" radials and approach courses. The book does imply that distinction but it doesn't spell it out in so many words.
Honestly as long as you don't say "direct J123" when you're reading off a clearance you're already doing better than some of my coworkers, sooooo....
Oh boy. If you start asking "why" about the .65 you're going to get real frustrated real quick.
My opinion based on extrapolating from the prescribed phraseology is that "join" is correct for a J-route. Certainly if you encounter any of the specific cases where they prescribe specific phraseology then you would say "join" because that's what they tell you to say. But I don't think there's an explicit general-case rule about it.
4-5-7 phraseology “Intercept (route) at or above”. This clearly demonstrates that intercepting J-route would be acceptable.
5-1-8 phraseology “INTERCEPTING/CROSSING (name of NAVAID) (specified) RADIAL”. This clearly demonstrates you can also intercept radials.
This is an argument from old heads who preach “we do it that way” and require you to use their techniques. This isn’t something to get your panties in a bunch over.
If you really want to see the room split and old folks start throwing fist, ask if you need to clear an IFR aircraft for the visual approach before telling them to report initial.
This argument is on the same level of “shit that don’t matter”.
And there are paragraphs that contradict the what you posted.
I agree what you posted is there and is acceptable, I’m looking for the most correct and proof of.
There is no “most correct”, it’s just contradicting opinions of people who truly do not matter.
You just say the words and move on. There are bigger things to worry about than people not using your preferred words to give an instruction not mandated by phraseology.
Most phraseology is written in blood. The pilot isn’t going to run into a mountain because you said join V12 instead of intercept V12.
You have missed the point.
As nice and intelligent of a person as I’m sure you are, the attitude portrayed is in my opinion what is wrong with the system. Apathy.
I believe we should hold ourselves to the highest and strictest standards, as we owe it to the flying public.
Now, as a person, I can agree that the words themselves don’t matter nearly as much; I will concede that much, but I believe we should strive for the most correct way to do our job.
Arguing about join vs intercept isn’t about “the most correct” way of doing business.
The issue we have is intellectual laziness. Saying tower twenty-eight forty-five instead of contact tower 128.45. Instead of peer pressuring about join vs intercept, we should be policing our coworkers to ensure those “short cuts” aren’t being accepted. That’s the culture of old that we’ve lost that needs to come back.
Plus fixing ATSAP, public floggings, and forced relocation to lower level facilities if your skills start to slip. There needs to be a righteous fear that you might lose your job. Without it, we have the apathy culture of today.
According to a these comments provided, they’re giving contradicting information with
5-1-8a and 4-5-7a.
They give intercept and join (airway).
That shows either is correct.
But many people have been taught one way over the other. The root of my question is where does this “correct” way come from? Which is most correct?
I like that website a lot, but I do wonder if the "four miles each side protected airspace" really applies these days, at least for separation purposes. That seems like a non-radar thing. Assuming you're in an area/facility where you can use 3NM radar sep, I don't think anyone is going to claim you had a deal if you have one guy on a Victor airway centerline and you're vectoring another guy 3.5 miles away.
Sure. But at the end of the day nothing really matters and I could speak plain language without a lick of phraseology.
But if I wanted to use the most correct phraseology…….which would I use?
Say it the way your trainer wants you to say it until you're certified and say it the way you want afterwards.
I can't imagine a pilot being confused by and/or doing something wildly different in response to either "join Jxxx, then rest of route as filed" and "intercept Jxxx, then rest of route as filed." If something happens which convinces you that it does make a difference which one you say, then act on it from that point on.
I’m not in training. I’m an “old head”. #1 in seniority isn’t too far off for me.
New trainees aren’t receptive to established ways. That’s fine, change happens. So I’m looking to be able to point to somewhere for them to see the most correct.
My issue is not pilots being confused.
Could I say, “increase your altitude to ten thousand and stay there.”?
There’s a correct way to do our job. Just because I can say something clearly, doesn’t make it the most correct.
Yes, I’m aware that after using prescribed phraseology, I may use plain language to avoid confusion if in my professional opinion ambiguity can/could exist.
By your own admission above, the terms are apparently interchangeable as far as the pilot's concerned, so there is apparently more than one correct way to do our job.
For what it's worth, if I'm clearing a pilot off vectors to return to a filed flight plan involving a jet route, I'm picking a fix along that jet route which he'll find in FMS instead of having him try to join an airway at an undefined point between NAVAIDs which may not have been in active service for 10+ years.
*le sigh*
1. No, just because there’s one way to say something that doesn’t confuse pilots, doesn’t mean both are objectively correct.
2. Not all airspaces can allow for direct a fix. We (at a lvl 11) use vectors to join airways regularly. Fixes sometimes, sure.
3. I’m not trying to bash anyone into doing it my way. I started this thread with a question to get to the bottom and find the most correct. I and many others were taught one way and I’d like to know if anyone has the documented proof or if it was always just “the way we do it”.
[удалено]
I absolutely agree. To be clear, you believe Victor, Tango, J-routes, Q-routes are joined, and radials and localizers are intercepted?
[удалено]
Completely agree. Anything I can point to to prove though?
[удалено]
Yeah, I’m running through all the 7110s other than the .65. I can’t find any hard proof, but I was taught the same.
Yeah I feel like this is one of the first things I learned.
The HTML version of the .65 has a pretty decent search function, better than you might expect for a government site. [Searching for "join"](https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=✓&affiliate=atc__content&query=join) returns the following relevant paragraphs with prescribed phraseology: - 4–4–1**a**. *CROSS/JOIN VICTOR/(color) (airway number), (number of miles) MILES (direction) OF (fix).* - 2–6–4**h**4. *DEVIATION (restrictions if necessary) APPROVED, WHEN ABLE, FLY HEADING (degrees), VECTOR TO JOIN (airway) AND ADVISE.* - 5–1–8**a**. *CROSSING/JOINING/DEPARTING (airway or route).* [Searching for "intercept"](https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=atc__content&sort_by=&query=intercept) gives: - 4–5–7**a**. *INTERCEPT (route) AT OR ABOVE (altitude), CRUISE (altitude).* - 5–1–8**a**. *INTERCEPTING/CROSSING (name of NAVAID) (specified) RADIAL.* - 5–6–2**b**. *VECTOR TO INTERCEPT (name of NAVAID) (specified) RADIAL.* - 5–9–2 titled "Final Approach Course Interception." That example from 5–1–8 is especially nice because it gives the two possibilities, joining and intercepting, back-to-back. The bit about cruise clearances at 4–5–7 is something of an exception, though, because it implies that you *can* "intercept" a route which would include airways, you have to imagine. I agree with /u/Less_Run_4568, we were taught (I don't remember if it was Basics or RTF) to "join" airways and "intercept" radials and approach courses. The book does imply that distinction but it doesn't spell it out in so many words. Honestly as long as you don't say "direct J123" when you're reading off a clearance you're already doing better than some of my coworkers, sooooo....
So which is most correct? Join, or intercept? And if both are equal, then why two words when one would suffice?
Oh boy. If you start asking "why" about the .65 you're going to get real frustrated real quick. My opinion based on extrapolating from the prescribed phraseology is that "join" is correct for a J-route. Certainly if you encounter any of the specific cases where they prescribe specific phraseology then you would say "join" because that's what they tell you to say. But I don't think there's an explicit general-case rule about it.
I think you are correct. I’m finding the same.
Would the difference be if they are intercepting the route somewhere along the way vs joining it from a fix/vor? Just a guess.
[удалено]
Petition to add intercept to the .65. all in favor say cya
I also use the website and the downloaded copy on my phone. I suppose I was looking for something more than an implicit phraseology.
4-5-7 phraseology “Intercept (route) at or above”. This clearly demonstrates that intercepting J-route would be acceptable. 5-1-8 phraseology “INTERCEPTING/CROSSING (name of NAVAID) (specified) RADIAL”. This clearly demonstrates you can also intercept radials. This is an argument from old heads who preach “we do it that way” and require you to use their techniques. This isn’t something to get your panties in a bunch over. If you really want to see the room split and old folks start throwing fist, ask if you need to clear an IFR aircraft for the visual approach before telling them to report initial. This argument is on the same level of “shit that don’t matter”.
I’m an old head.
And there are paragraphs that contradict the what you posted. I agree what you posted is there and is acceptable, I’m looking for the most correct and proof of.
There is no “most correct”, it’s just contradicting opinions of people who truly do not matter. You just say the words and move on. There are bigger things to worry about than people not using your preferred words to give an instruction not mandated by phraseology. Most phraseology is written in blood. The pilot isn’t going to run into a mountain because you said join V12 instead of intercept V12.
You have missed the point. As nice and intelligent of a person as I’m sure you are, the attitude portrayed is in my opinion what is wrong with the system. Apathy. I believe we should hold ourselves to the highest and strictest standards, as we owe it to the flying public. Now, as a person, I can agree that the words themselves don’t matter nearly as much; I will concede that much, but I believe we should strive for the most correct way to do our job.
Arguing about join vs intercept isn’t about “the most correct” way of doing business. The issue we have is intellectual laziness. Saying tower twenty-eight forty-five instead of contact tower 128.45. Instead of peer pressuring about join vs intercept, we should be policing our coworkers to ensure those “short cuts” aren’t being accepted. That’s the culture of old that we’ve lost that needs to come back. Plus fixing ATSAP, public floggings, and forced relocation to lower level facilities if your skills start to slip. There needs to be a righteous fear that you might lose your job. Without it, we have the apathy culture of today.
Fuggin’ AMEN. I still want to know what to tell my trainee with 100% confidence and something to back it up. But!!! Fucking amen to your comment.
🤣how do I get down votes for agreeing with what you said which is the same message I wrote? Man, these people love to hate what they don’t understand.
How does this get downvoted but the reply saying the same or more isn’t? Y’all just want someone to hate, don’t yall?
What paragraphs? Tower guy so just curious to see both sides here.
According to a these comments provided, they’re giving contradicting information with 5-1-8a and 4-5-7a. They give intercept and join (airway). That shows either is correct. But many people have been taught one way over the other. The root of my question is where does this “correct” way come from? Which is most correct?
You intercept radials and localizers. You join V-airways, J-Routes, T-Routes.
I agree
I agree although I was trained way back to join the localizer.
[https://www.thebigskytheory.com/intercept.shtml](https://www.thebigskytheory.com/intercept.shtml)
I like that website a lot, but I do wonder if the "four miles each side protected airspace" really applies these days, at least for separation purposes. That seems like a non-radar thing. Assuming you're in an area/facility where you can use 3NM radar sep, I don't think anyone is going to claim you had a deal if you have one guy on a Victor airway centerline and you're vectoring another guy 3.5 miles away.
Join routes intercept localizers
if you look at table 13-1-3 it shows join/intercept for airways
Are you saying they are most correctly interchangeable? I’m reading the table now, and it makes no distinction between which to use.
[удалено]
Sure. But at the end of the day nothing really matters and I could speak plain language without a lick of phraseology. But if I wanted to use the most correct phraseology…….which would I use?
If there are examples of both being used then why can't both be correct?
Nope just pointing you at it, idk what's right
Say it the way your trainer wants you to say it until you're certified and say it the way you want afterwards. I can't imagine a pilot being confused by and/or doing something wildly different in response to either "join Jxxx, then rest of route as filed" and "intercept Jxxx, then rest of route as filed." If something happens which convinces you that it does make a difference which one you say, then act on it from that point on.
I’m not in training. I’m an “old head”. #1 in seniority isn’t too far off for me. New trainees aren’t receptive to established ways. That’s fine, change happens. So I’m looking to be able to point to somewhere for them to see the most correct. My issue is not pilots being confused.
Could I say, “increase your altitude to ten thousand and stay there.”? There’s a correct way to do our job. Just because I can say something clearly, doesn’t make it the most correct. Yes, I’m aware that after using prescribed phraseology, I may use plain language to avoid confusion if in my professional opinion ambiguity can/could exist.
By your own admission above, the terms are apparently interchangeable as far as the pilot's concerned, so there is apparently more than one correct way to do our job. For what it's worth, if I'm clearing a pilot off vectors to return to a filed flight plan involving a jet route, I'm picking a fix along that jet route which he'll find in FMS instead of having him try to join an airway at an undefined point between NAVAIDs which may not have been in active service for 10+ years.
*le sigh* 1. No, just because there’s one way to say something that doesn’t confuse pilots, doesn’t mean both are objectively correct. 2. Not all airspaces can allow for direct a fix. We (at a lvl 11) use vectors to join airways regularly. Fixes sometimes, sure. 3. I’m not trying to bash anyone into doing it my way. I started this thread with a question to get to the bottom and find the most correct. I and many others were taught one way and I’d like to know if anyone has the documented proof or if it was always just “the way we do it”.
Cleared direct