ATC errors enroute to MQY

Jon Weiswasser

Jon Weiswasser

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
126
Display Name
J Weiswasser
Vectored across the final approach course into traffic on the way to Nashville for the MMOPA convention. Part 1 of an epic Eaglemania journey.



 
Jon Weiswasser said:
Vectored across the final approach course into traffic on the way to Nashville for the MMOPA convention. Part 1 of an epic Eaglemania journey.



Click to expand...
It didn’t sound like she ever gave you the vector to final she had said to expect. Your last clearance received was direct JOPIV. To just continue straight ahead after JOPIV on the heading you were on to get to JOPIV is not a vector across the Localizer. You need to speak up as soon as realize that they may be late with the vector.
 
Exactly! I would have, but I saw the conflict emerging and I needed to focus on identifying traffic.
 
Jon Weiswasser said:
Exactly! I would have, but I saw the conflict emerging and I needed to focus on identifying traffic.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Good way to do it when you realize it is happening and it's busy is to keep it short and simple. None of that 'approach, this N12345, I need a turn' stuff. Push the button, don't shout but raise your voice a notch, and say "turn to final for N12345." Draw their eyes to you on the scope.
 
Had I not been in visual conditions, I would have done that for sure. When it's really busy (which it wasn't) I've also keyed the ident button. Thanks for watching and for reaching out!
 
First, I would have queried ATC. “Approach, Meridian 9DA approaching JOPIV.” There was plenty of time for that. Second, technically you weren’t on a vector and you were instructed to go direct JOPIV with no further routing. I wouldn’t have gone past JOPIV to never never land. Enter holding at JOPIV and await further clearance.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I was told to expect vectors after specifically asking about entering the hold/procedure turn, given the angle at which I was approaching JOPIV.
 
Jon Weiswasser said:
Actually, I was told to expect vectors after specifically asking about entering the hold/procedure turn, given the angle at which I was approaching JOPIV.
Click to expand...

At least half the time "expect vectors" is a trick they play on you, I think they get a big laugh if you fall for it and they hear it in your voice. Haven't watched the vid yet, hopefully later.
 
Jon Weiswasser said:
Actually, I was told to expect vectors after specifically asking about entering the hold/procedure turn, given the angle at which I was approaching JOPIV.
Click to expand...

I know you were told to expect vectors but technically you were never on a vector. As you were approaching from the north and if she turned you to a 300 but never gave a clearance or to track the loc / course inbound, then that would be vectors across final. In that case if you can’t get a query out about your clearance, then you continue on the vector. In your case, once you go past JOPIV you’re in no man’s land. What heading should you pick up after that?

I agree, she should have either vectored you or gotten the clearance out prior to JOPIV but to say “a series of errors” on her part? Nah.
 
Velocity173 said:
I agree, she should have either vectored you or gotten the clearance out prior to JOPIV but to say “a series of errors” on her part? Nah.
Click to expand...

Im not trying to make a big deal out of it. It was the only thing that was anomalous on the flight, hence the highlighting. But, the series of errors were 1) not giving me appropriate instructions and allowing me to cross final approach course, 2) as a result, the potential traffic conflict, 3) neglecting to hand me off to tower after crossing the FAF, and 4) giving me the incorrect tower frequency. Were any of them a big deal? With the possible exception of the traffic conflict, no. Was it unusual for ATC in my experience? Yes.

I'm a big fan of ATC. I think it is one of the few things that our government does EXTREMELY well, and I consider myself fortunate that I am able to fly in an environment staffed by people who, on a government salary, do such a supremely professional job. This was an unusual experience in my humble opinion.
 
Velocity173 said:
I know you were told to expect vectors but technically you were never on a vector. As you were approaching from the north and if she turned you to a 300 but never gave a clearance or to track the loc / course inbound, then that would be vectors across final. In that case if you can’t get a query out about your clearance, then you continue on the vector. In your case, once you go past JOPIV you’re in no man’s land. What heading should you pick up after that?

I agree, she should have either vectored you or gotten the clearance out prior to JOPIV but to say “a series of errors” on her part? Nah.
Click to expand...
This was my first thought. I'm not IR yet, but I thought if you were cleared to A, you go to A. I've read plenty of threads here on what to do if you lose comms before you get to A and I don't recall any of the possible answers being to just keep flying in the same direction.
 
Lindberg said:
This was my first thought. I'm not IR yet, but I thought if you were cleared to A, you go to A. I've read plenty of threads here on what to do if you lose comms before you get to A and I don't recall any of the possible answers being to just keep flying in the same direction.
Click to expand...

Definitely. In that case I would hope the OP would enter holding at JOPIV and not continued past the fix.

The problem with calling the OP’s situation of a vector across final is, well it’s not a vector across final. Let’s just say though for arguments sake ATC didn’t intervene as the OP passed JOPIV and continued on his track passed final. Next thing they know, they look down and see the OP way passed JOPIV and head to head with another IFR. Now separation is lost, “tapes” are pulled, QA investigates and sends the data to the local FSDO. ATC would take the brunt of the blame but the FSDO would want to know why the OP chose to go passed JOPIV as well.

No doubt this is on the controller. Vector wasn’t issued in a timely matter. The traffic call is subjective. Since it was actually issued, I wouldn’t call it an error. Late switch to tower. No requirement to be at the FAF but has to be before entering the surface area which the OP was in. However, a late transfer can be coordinated. Wrong freq for tower was definitely a bust.

Most likely a trainee but still doesn’t absolve her instructor from stepping in sooner. Should’ve been more attentive to what his student was doing.
 
Also, don't forget... I ASKED whether I should expect vectors, OR whether I should expect to fly the procedure turn (given the angle at which I approached the fix - which would have required well in excess of 90deg to turn onto final - a course reversal procedure would be necessary) and was told to expect vectors. Flying to the fix and then making that turn would have put me into conflict with that traffic anyway. Yes, I was not technically on an assigned heading (hence, I wasn't necessarily on a vector per se), but I also wasn't expected to fly inbound after arriving at JOPIV (per the regs), and I was told specifically not to fly the procedure turn (per ATC).

BTW - I really enjoy these discussions. Thank you all for chiming in.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Definitely. In that case I would hope the OP would enter holding at JOPIV and not continued past the fix.

The problem with calling the OP’s situation of a vector across final is, well it’s not a vector across final. Let’s just say though for arguments sake ATC didn’t intervene as the OP passed JOPIV and continued on his track passed final. Next thing they know, they look down and see the OP way passed JOPIV and head to head with another IFR. Now separation is lost, “tapes” are pulled, QA investigates and sends the data to the local FSDO. ATC would take the brunt of the blame but the FSDO would want to know why the OP chose to go passed JOPIV as well.

No doubt this is on the controller. Vector wasn’t issued in a timely matter. The traffic call is subjective. Since it was actually issued, I wouldn’t call it an error. Late switch to tower. No requirement to be at the FAF but has to be before entering the surface area which the OP was in. However, a late transfer can be coordinated. Wrong freq for tower was definitely a bust.

Most likely a trainee but still doesn’t absolve her instructor from stepping in sooner. Should’ve been more attentive to what his student was doing.
Click to expand...
An argument could be made that if unable to communicate and resolve the problem, that turning inbound at JOPIV and doing the Approach could be the thing to do. It does not sound like JOPIV was ever a Clearance Limit. I'm sure that was the Airport all along. I ain't pickin a side here, but it is discussable. Depending on what I had been hearing on the radio and the picture I had of traffic, I might be prone to just turning in and doing it rather turn out towards a plane that was being setup to follow me.
 
luvflyin said:
An argument could be made that if unable to communicate and resolve the problem, that turning inbound at JOPIV and doing the Approach could be the thing to do. It does not sound like JOPIV was ever a Clearance Limit. I'm sure that was the Airport all along. I ain't pickin a side here, but it is discussable. Depending on what I had been hearing on the radio and the picture I had of traffic, I might be prone to just turning in and doing it rather turn out towards a plane that was being setup to follow me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we’ve had that discussion on here before. Either getting vectors or direct a fix and you can’t get in a word with ATC. Call it lost commo and execute the approach. I personally don’t consider frequency congestion as lost commo but that would be something a CC decision would be made on.
 
I would not have flown through the localizer unless there was a traffic conflict which preventing turning inbound. Flying through the localizer is when you're on a vector which wasn't the case.

Told to expect the approach, then cleared to a fix on the approach. You are expecting to proceed inbound from that fix which an advanced RNAV system is capable of doing. That's what I would have done. If the controller wanted something else then appropriate control instructions should have been given.

The last thing a controller is going to want is for you to enter a holding pattern. The fix wasn't a clearance limit and there's likely traffic behind you that you'd be turning into.
 
Jon, you handled that perfectly IMO, and your SA was perfect. I think you are correct about the trainee and I think the trainer was right on top of it, waiting for her to notice and correct the issue. When she didn't in a timely fashion, he did. Hopefully it was one of her first days and she improves.

Being flown through the final approach course happens quite a bit around here, usually during non stop controller chatter. I was taught to maintain heading and fly though as you are on vectors, turning would have been a mistake, which I think you know (unless that traffic forced you to).

Great video, if you do a show in the New England area drop a post here, I'd love to see you guys perform. Eagles are expensive and I like smaller venues.
 
The trainer / sup wasn’t on top of the situation. If he was, he would have prompted his trainee to turn the OP long before JOPIV. Definitely before shooting through. You don’t delay an IFR aircraft or any aircraft for that matter at the expense of a learning point. The late switch and improper tower freq were both on the trainer as well. Even with a trainee on, traffic should flow as if it’s a qualified controller on position…since technically a qualified controller’s (trainer) ticket is in the balance.
 
Velocity173 said:
The trainer / sup wasn’t on top of the situation. If he was, he would have prompted his trainee to turn the OP long before JOPIV. Definitely before shooting through. You don’t delay an IFR aircraft or any aircraft for that matter at the expense of a learning point. The late switch and improper tower freq were both on the trainer as well. Even with a trainee on, traffic should flow as if it’s a qualified controller on position…since technically a qualified controller’s (trainer) ticket is in the balance.
Click to expand...

We have no idea why he wasn't turned, or what else they were dealing with. It has happened to me before more than a few times. What I was referring to about the training moment was the trainee not turning him for traffic.

The point is sometimes you are vectored through the final approach course and sometimes you aren't told it's going to happen. You don't start making up your own turns or holds, you fly the vector, if it's not that busy you ask them what's up, if you need to turn because of traffic you turn.

I was flying to an airport here, where the ceiling was at 1,000 feet. The controller was very busy, almost non stop on the radio. A guy at another airport was on a vector, the controller called him and told him to fly through the final approach course. That obviously rattled the guy who responded in a ****ed off whiny tone, "Well whyyyyyy am I being vectored through the final". The controller just responded traffic ahead of you and vectored him around again. It happens, no big deal.
 
PaulS said:
We have no idea why he wasn't turned, or what else they were dealing with. It has happened to me before more than a few times. What I was referring to about the training moment was the trainee not turning him for traffic.

The point is sometimes you are vectored through the final approach course and sometimes you aren't told it's going to happen. You don't start making up your own turns or holds, you fly the vector, if it's not that busy you ask them what's up, if you need to turn because of traffic you turn.

I was flying to an airport here, where the ceiling was at 1,000 feet. The controller was very busy, almost non stop on the radio. A guy at another airport was on a vector, the controller called him and told him to fly through the final approach course. That obviously rattled the guy who responded in a ****ed off whiny tone, "Well whyyyyyy am I being vectored through the final". The controller just responded traffic ahead of you and vectored him around again. It happens, no big deal.
Click to expand...

But that’s not supposed to happen. The OP is correct in that the controller is required to inform the pilot that they will be vectored through final. Now, nobody’s perfect. I’ve vectored aircraft on approach through final before without telling the aircraft. I’ve had trainees do the same. But I definitely wasn’t on top of the situation to allow that to happen. It’s still an error. Telling the pilot (OP) to expect vectors is supposed to be before they intercept final. Not a 350 degree heading to intercept the localizer on the other side.

In the OP’s case, it wasn’t a vector through final anyway. You don’t make up your own heading on the other side as though you’re on a vector. Which heading do you choose anyway? Your last track to JOPIV? You proceed inbound on the localizer because that’s the fix the OP was cleared to and the only routing after that fix on the flight plan would be the clearance limit (KMQY).
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 - I totally get that. But what if the turn onto the final approach course is a 150 degree turn from the heading it takes to reach the fix? At 150kts, when do you start that turn? If I let the FMS do it, it will start well before reaching the fix. If I cross the fix and then make the turn, how is that different than what happened in this case? Are you saying that, from the ATC point of view, I should have let the FMS sequence the waypoints, knowing full well that it would have initiated the turn to final well before fix? How does the rule about requiring a procedure turn/course reversal when the turn to final exceeds 90 degrees fit in here?

-Jon
 
Jon Weiswasser said:
Velocity173 - I totally get that. But what if the turn onto the final approach course is a 150 degree turn from the heading it takes to reach the fix? At 150kts, when do you start that turn? If I let the FMS do it, it will start well before reaching the fix. If I cross the fix and then make the turn, how is that different than what happened in this case? Are you saying that, from the ATC point of view, I should have let the FMS sequence the waypoints, knowing full well that it would have initiated the turn to final well before fix? How does the rule about requiring a procedure turn/course reversal when the turn to final exceeds 90 degrees fit in here?

-Jon
Click to expand...

You were never vectored to final and you’re direct an IAF greater than 90 degrees intercept. You can’t go straight in and ATC can’t clear you straight in. You have to do the HILPT before proceeding inbound on the FAC.
 
You guys sure like watch long dragging videos. End button pushed.
 
Velocity173 - Not to belabor the point, but I asked and she specifically told me NOT to fly the HILPT and to expect vectors. How does that factor in to what I did?

Clip4 - sorry you feel that way. These videos aren't for everyone...
 
Jon Weiswasser said:
Velocity173 - Not to belabor the point, but I asked and she specifically told me NOT to fly the HILPT and to expect vectors. How does that factor in to what I did?

Clip4 - sorry you feel that way. These videos aren't for everyone...
Click to expand...

I didn’t hear where she specifically told you not to fly the HILPT. In the vid she simply stated “you can expect vectors for the approach.” Meaning, direct JOPIV was just to get you on a course where at the appropriate time, she could vector you to intercept final between JOPIV and OXCUH.

If her intentions were to vector you to JOPIV, then that still has to be less than 90 degrees for you to bypass the course reversal. She doesn’t have the authority to override that. Direct JOPIV wouldn’t make sense if she planned on vectoring you outside of JOPIV anyway.
 
Velocity173-
Scrub to 16:30. I explain my reasoning for the query, then ask “would you like me to do the course reversal at JOPIV or expect vectors to final” to which she responds “you should expect vectors to final”. To me, and please tell me if I’m wrong here, but that is tacitly stating DO NOT fly the course reversal. Are you saying I should have flown it anyway?

Btw - which facility do you work out of? I wonder if we have ever crossed paths…?
 
Jon Weiswasser said:
Velocity173-
Scrub to 16:30. I explain my reasoning for the query, then ask “would you like me to do the course reversal at JOPIV or expect vectors to final” to which she responds “you should expect vectors to final”. To me, and please tell me if I’m wrong here, but that is tacitly stating DO NOT fly the course reversal. Are you saying I should have flown it anyway?

Btw - which facility do you work out of? I wonder if we have ever crossed paths…?
Click to expand...

But you never received a vector and she never cleared you for a straight in. Only to “expect vectors.” That never came and you were direct a fix that definitely required a course reversal.

Don’t do ATC anymore. Was approach, tower and GCA rated in the Marines for 8 years.
 
Jon Weiswasser said:
Velocity173 - Not to belabor the point, but I asked and she specifically told me NOT to fly the HILPT and to expect vectors. How does that factor in to what I did?
Click to expand...
In my view, it really doesn't.

There is no RIGHT answer as to what you are supposed to do when ATC doesn't give you proper control instructions.

You were not receiving vectors to final, you were direct to the fix on the approach. Unless you had reason to believe that she intended to take you through final, I wouldn't fly through final. On vectors, I would.

It would be very unusual to do a HILPT in a terminal radar environment. Aircraft are vectored in-trail to join the final approach. A HILPT would disrupt the flow. ATC would have to leave a large gap between you and the airplane that is following you in order to allow for the HILPT.

If you are unable to ask, do what ATC was most likely expecting to have you do. In this case, she was likely planning to give you a turn, prior to the fix, to join final but she never did. Your advanced RNAV will make the turn to final just fine treating the fix as a fly-by waypoint, which it is. The result will be similar to what the vector to final would have been.

If she doesn't like that, she can give you a new heading and new vectors to re-join final.

If the weather is such as the approach will be required inside of the FAF then fly the final at your last assigned altitude and ask for new vectors as you can't complete the approach from the angle at which you joined.

Normally, ATC will ignore aircraft farther out while sorting out the aircraft that are closer in, i.e. joining final. As workload permits, they'll work their way back to the aircraft father out. It is unusual for them to forget someone joining the FAC without further clearance. ATC can't complain when it was their lack of appropriate control instructions which left you without a clear course to fly.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
But you never received a vector and she never cleared you for a straight in. Only to “expect vectors.” That never came and you were direct a fix that definitely required a course reversal.

Don’t do ATC anymore. Was approach, tower and GCA rated in the Marines for 8 years.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Had to go back and look. Yeah, there is that angle of intercept thing. It was an ILS Approach. There are rules about RNAV equipped aircraft doing conventional Approaches. I’m not sure the 90 degree rule applies here though. Gotta look that up which I don’t have time to do right now. Paging @RussR . Say the course he was on was an Initial Segement. What’s the limit on a NoPT. Go to about 16:40 in the video to get a picture of it.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
Hmm. Had to go back and look. Yeah, there is that angle of intercept thing. It was an ILS Approach. There are rules about RNAV equipped aircraft doing conventional Approaches. I’m not sure the 90 degree rule applies here though. Gotta look that up which I don’t have time to do right now. Paging @RussR . Say the course he was on was a Feeder or Intermediate Segement. What’s the limit on a NoPT. Go to about 16:40 in the video to get a picture of it.
Click to expand...

Oh it applies here. Similar wording is in the AIM.

BC4E788D-E10A-4E92-902D-4136AE0D5602.jpeg
 
luvflyin said:
What’s the entire paragraph number where that d. is?
Click to expand...
See AIM 5-4-5, section 4, paragraph (a);" ATC should not clear an aircraft left base or right base leg IAF within a TAA at an intercept angle exceeding 90 degrees."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top