Good afternoon forum,
I use Pilot2ATC with X-Chatter, this injects real world ATC conversations based on region, and frequency you are tuned into. So if I am tuned into ground, I also hear related ground chatter etc…
One thing I have been hearing lately is “RNAV DOCKER”, I forget the exact phrase but something like “Cleared to RNAC DOCKER” or something close.
Is this some type of procedure? or is DOCKER (spelling?) a waypoint / fix, etc…?
Thanks in advance.
Actually, after playing with the spelling in Navigraph, I do see a “DOCKR” waypoint at KLAX. I wonder if it was cleared to that waypoint as part of the RNAV approach.
DOCKR is the first waypoint on the SIDs from Rwy 25R. So yes, you’re hearing “RNAV DOCKR”. (DOCKR is named after Dockweiler Beach, which departures from 25R pass over.)
Thanks!
Yes, I was able to locate it on the SID for KLAX. I thought it was some type of procedure with the amount I was hearing it over ATC but didn’t clue in it was a fix for a procedure.
Thanks for clarifying!
I’m not very knowledgeable about FAA phraseology, but why would you hear RNAV + waypoint on the radio? I’m not aware of such phraseology. If you would get a clearance it would be “direct …”. The phrase “RNAV” isn’t used apart from communicating RNAV status, for example “unable RNAV due …”.
I found a story about it on pilotedge
http://forums.pilotedge.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5469
Something with parallel runways and altitude clearance on departure (? not sure if I understand it all)
Thanks for that!
b. When conducting simultaneous parallel runway departures utilizing RNAV SIDs, advise aircraft of the initial fix/waypoint on the RNAV route.
PHRASEOLOGY-
RNAV to (fix/waypoint), RUNWAY (number), CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF.
EXAMPLE-
“RNAV to MPASS, Runway Two-Six Left, cleared for takeoff.”
Looks like that is what I am hearing in “Cleared to RNAV DOCKR” DOCKR being the first fix in the SID for 25R. So guessing 25L was also in use.
Ok weird, we don’t have that in EASA-land. Also its not standard ICAO-phraseology. But we are used to that from the yanks 
. Funny use of the phrase RNAV, in terminal operations its usually RNP-1. So it should really be RNP to … .
This first waypoint is part of the departure route you are cleared for, so I don’t get the point (pun intended) of that clearance. You should have checked the FMS route with the departure plate during briefing.
In case of deviation from the previously cleared route, the clearance should just be “direct …” or “heading … degrees”, no need to point out how to get to a certain point. From present position direct to waypoint is the definition of RNAV (area navigation).
I don’t know how it is in US but BRNAV (RNAV-5) is mandatory for IFR traffic. If not RNAV equipped for any reason (malfunction) this is usually stated at first contact with delivery or arrival.
KLAX is a bizar place anyway… when I land there I never know how to clear the runway properly… tend to taxi onto another runway instead of clearing. I’m talking C152, unsupervised
Sim, or real life? 
Sim… I’m no pilot… Nijntje91 is the pilot here, I found your phrase in Google 
I have never heard of this phraseology before on this side of the pond, so can’t help you here 
.
This is a real life scenario taking off from KLAX and also you will hear it in KMIA quite a bit. VATSIM also uses this as they try to mimic real life. The real-life rules 6.3.1.1 state that “Clearances for departing aircraft shall specify, when necessary for the separation of aircraft, direction of take-off and turn after take-off…” You will also see this at KLGA where a climb is specified. “AAL311, wind 034/15, runway 04 leard for take off BRONX Climb” or something like that. It is no different than saying “On departure turn heading 050, runway XX cleared for takeoff”. It is all about the direction of takeoff and turn after taking off for seperation.
I get all that, but why the phrase “RNAV”? How else are you supposed to fly direct a RNAV waypoint? Seems like common sense to me. In Europe BRNAV (RNAV-5) is mandatory for all IFR flights, not sure how it is in US. “Direct …” or “heading … degrees” if departure route is cancelled should be enough.
With “RNAV to DOCKR” I found below conversation, “cleared” after the phrase,
TOWER: MAA6853 Heavy, wind 280 at 9, RNAV to DOCKR RW 25R cleared for take-off.
MAA6853: Cleared for take-off RW 25R, RNAV DOCKR, MAA6853 Heavy, thank you, sir.
TOWER: MAA6853 Heavy, thank you for the patience today, sir. Contact SoCal Departure, have a good trip.
TOWER: MAA6853 Heavy, contact SoCal Departure, thanks for the help, good day, sir.
MAA6853: With… with Departure, MAA6853, good day.
… and then things turn out a bit wrong … but that would be off-topic here.
From my experience there is a move over the years for control to clarify extraneous info when giving clearances. Many of the airports I have been using for years have gone from having one or two STARS and SIDs to a veritable book full. With the slow transition away from navaids, in favour of GPS, we have ended up with some SIDs that are specific to RNAV and some that are navaid specific.
When clearance is provided that include RNAV fixes the controller will almost always include “RNAV” in the clearance. This is usually reserved for waypoints of specific importance, like the turn at DOCKR. Can’t tell you why they decided this was important but I expect it was a result of a reported incident at some point where there was confusion over the fix. (As is usually the case in NA. If someone was an idiot once, the powers that be adjust regs to prevent others from making the same mistake.) 
Still weird, over here if there is a conventional departure and a RNAV version of that same SID, they have different names. Neither does it matter, its the same departure, sure the RNAV overlay is more precise than the conventional version, but that shouldn’t matter too much.
Delivery clears you for a certain departure, you select the departure in FMS, during briefing the other pilot crosschecks the departure plate with SID and thats that .
Tower could clear direct a waypoint “direct …” or a certain heading “heading … degrees” in which case the departure route is cancelled. The phrase “RNAV” is never used except for communicating RNAV status, e.g. “unable RNAV due …”.
We could discus FAA phraseology all night, I still think its stupi.d . Don’t understand why the whole world is able to use standard ICAO phraseology (or close to at least), except the Americans .
Because you have filed and cleared for an RNAV departure and the RNAV has a specific path to DOCKR in this case. Some RNAV departures have vectors or an intercept point at the beginning of the departure, like out of DCA. Why RNAV because that is the situation. Don’t over think it.
At the end of the day it is not much different than the military use of “Runway 21 cleared to land, CHECK GEAR DOWN”. It is a simple reminder, you are on an RNAV departure, first waypoint is DOCKR and you should be on LNAV on departure and be at DOCKR at or below 3000. That is all it is. It’s not rocket science and barely aviation science. You guys are way over thinking this. If it is different in Europe, well ok a lot of things are different in Europe. Some better, some worse. That is the way it is.
Little bit off topic, but I believe the primary difference is that in NA we no longer take responsibility for ourselves. We expect the governing bodies to handhold us through our daily lives. If they don’t we rake them over the coals for allowing a situation to develop that a bit of individual common sense would have prevented.
We see this played out after every incident report. The next step is to adjust the system to mitigate the chance that someone will do something stupid, again. There are plenty of examples of procedural changes meant to replace common sense. Like explaining to the pilots that the fix they are to fly to is an RNAV fix, even though they are staring at a chart with RNAV in the name. 
