Do you have a target time to request further clearance?

[schmookeeg]

I had a situation come up on a flight into St. Louis yesterday.. and I realized I don't have a standard prompt-to-action, and would like one. Let me try to paint the scenario:

Filed: KOFK to KSUS via OVR V181 IRK FTZ



The important bits are really near the end. FTZ is the IAF for numerous approaches into SUS, hence why I filed to there. I was given a shortcut "Cleared direct Spirit of St Louis (KSUS)" which allowed me to cut the corner. But the corner being cut was my IAF to the procedures at SUS. . I was IMC. I don't fly this airspace often, so I assumed this was some quirk of STL Bravo and "just how they do things".



Approach kept me on that clearance to darn near the clearance limit. I was politely waiting for my next vectors/instructions, but the controller got busy. I prefer to be proactive on this stuff, so it created some anxiety. I finally got in to query him, and asked "should I expect vectors for the approach after KSUS?" and was given "maintain present heading, expect vectors for ILS...." so all was fine and no foul anywhere -- with 2nm to spare. He did seem annoyed that I even asked, but maybe he was annoyed I did not ask sooner, since this was a somewhat bogus clearance setup?

I think my querying him 5nm from my clearance limit was too late. I also think he would have been very annoyed if I began a random hold over the airport, or rolled my own approach vector from there.

Do any of you IFR flyers have a "I will query at or before X" when approaching a clearance limit? 10nm? 15nm? More? Do you have a particular way you like to ask so you seem like a team player and not a Karen barking after her overdue Latte?

I haven't run into this scenario before. In retrospect, I might have refused the shortcut since a fix directly over the airport in IMC is pretty useless to me in the end.

I appreciate any thoughts or techniques to add to the toolbag. Always learning in this game.

- Mike

 

[dmspilot]

What runway was in use?

 

[schmookeeg]

What runway was in use?

26L. I was planning the feeder from FTZ onto the ILS LOM at EAVES. In the end I got vectored south, saving me the course reversal.

 

[nauga]

I had a situation come up on a flight into St. Louis yesterday..

Why was I not informed of this?! Still here?

Nauga,
rarely

 

[schmookeeg]

Why was I not informed of this?! Still here?

Nauga,
rarely

Sadly not, was a quick bounce through. I didn't know you were in STL, though. I'll make better life choices next time I bring a Beech into Missouri and we can get refreshments!

...the real poor life choice was getting stuck in KOFK for 36 hours. No uber, no lyft, no taxis, ice and swuzz everywhere. Had to walk the 2.5mi to my terrible hotel to sulk.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Your clearance limit wasn’t the airport?

 

[luvflyin]

I had a situation come up on a flight into St. Louis yesterday.. and I realized I don't have a standard prompt-to-action, and would like one. Let me try to paint the scenario:

Filed: KOFK to KSUS via OVR V181 IRK FTZ

View attachment 123379

The important bits are really near the end. FTZ is the IAF for numerous approaches into SUS, hence why I filed to there. I was given a shortcut "Cleared direct Spirit of St Louis (KSUS)" which allowed me to cut the corner. But the corner being cut was my IAF to the procedures at SUS. . I was IMC. I don't fly this airspace often, so I assumed this was some quirk of STL Bravo and "just how they do things".

View attachment 123380

Approach kept me on that clearance to darn near the clearance limit. I was politely waiting for my next vectors/instructions, but the controller got busy. I prefer to be proactive on this stuff, so it created some anxiety. I finally got in to query him, and asked "should I expect vectors for the approach after KSUS?" and was given "maintain present heading, expect vectors for ILS...." so all was fine and no foul anywhere -- with 2nm to spare. He did seem annoyed that I even asked, but maybe he was annoyed I did not ask sooner, since this was a somewhat bogus clearance setup?

I think my querying him 5nm from my clearance limit was too late. I also think he would have been very annoyed if I began a random hold over the airport, or rolled my own approach vector from there.

Do any of you IFR flyers have a "I will query at or before X" when approaching a clearance limit? 10nm? 15nm? More? Do you have a particular way you like to ask so you seem like a team player and not a Karen barking after her overdue Latte?

I haven't run into this scenario before. In retrospect, I might have refused the shortcut since a fix directly over the airport in IMC is pretty useless to me in the end.

I appreciate any thoughts or techniques to add to the toolbag. Always learning in this game.

- Mike

I have no hard number. I think you should have asked much sooner. I don't remember being in this situation before. I would have rattled their cage a minute or so before getting abeam FTZ.

 

[dmspilot]

26L. I was planning the feeder from FTZ onto the ILS LOM at EAVES. In the end I got vectored south, saving me the course reversal.

Well it would be unusual to fly to a fix on the wrong side of the airport, and to do a charted course reversal under a radar environment.

The controller should have advised to expect radar vectors for a specific approach.

 

[luvflyin]

26L. I was planning the feeder from FTZ onto the ILS LOM at EAVES. In the end I got vectored south, saving me the course reversal.

View attachment 123382

With 26 in use I don't think I would have been in much of rush to find out from them what the plan was then if 8 was in use. What about altitude? Were you kind high when they finally got around to you and it was a lotta work to get down?

 

[midwestpa24]

My polite way of asking WTH is to call up with "NXXXX has the weather and NOTAMs at SUS, request the ILS 26L"

Its a prompt for them to remember you and to get you setup.

 

[rangerz]

It does get a bit nervous when you're not sure what next exactly and the miles are ticking down so I would've probably done the same thing and asked.

Personally, I'm more of a file direct sort unless I know a destination might not have radar services available or there are terrain considerations (which is often directly related to radar service availability). I figure I'm going to get vectors in almost all cases otherwise.

 

[schmookeeg]

With 26 in use I don't think I would have been in much of rush to find out from them what the plan was then if 8 was in use. What about altitude? Were you kind high when they finally got around to you and it was a lotta work to get down?

Somewhat high at 3000 IIRC, so the "plan" was very much undecided in my mind, and we had not yet discussed approach request or expect <something>. I can see the point about showing up "upwind" and expecting to fit in smoothly -- lazy on my part I suppose to choose a fix that fed both sides of the airport I get away with that a lot, so maybe there is "step one" of my "clean it up" mission here.

I like using abeam or even pre-abeam a potential feeder fix as a call to action. As an "offramp" from the enroute system, I see good logic there.

Clearance limit was the airport as a fix. I don't think that entitled me to overfly, but maybe I need to revisit some sort of "move" I've forgotten in this scenario? I haven't done an IR student in a bit, so I admit some rust with the more obscure regs -- hence this post to self-shame and expose myself to enlightenment in its many forms

(Am appreciating the discussion, thank you all)

 

[eman1200]

this kinda stuff doesn't happen in a mooney

curious how the plan was undecided........did u check wx and to see what approach they were using? when you planned the flight, were they using an approach to 8? I'm wondering if you had an approach bias in your head since you filed to FTZ but were getting something else....

I've been known to check in with the last approach controller on handoff with my approach request and where I want it to start.

 

[schmookeeg]

this kinda stuff doesn't happen in a mooney

curious how the plan was undecided........did u check wx and to see what approach they were using? when you planned the flight, were they using an approach to 8? I'm wondering if you had an approach bias in your head since you filed to FTZ but were getting something else....

I've been known to check in with the last approach controller on handoff with my approach request and where I want it to start.

No approaches advertised that I recall. Just landing and departing 26L. Field was MVFR.

I picked that waypoint because it seemed like a common feeder to both sides. I do that a lot. Airing this "one weird trick" of mine is making me rethink it, though.

Sleepy Sunday morning, earlyish, so there were only departures that I remarked prior to arrival, no others on approach to copy from.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

It was St Louis approach. That's all I'm gonna say.

 

[midlifeflyer]

26L. I was planning the feeder from FTZ onto the ILS LOM at EAVES. In the end I got vectored south, saving me the course reversal.

I’m a little confused. Did you at some earlier point tell ATC you want the ILS 26L self-nav from FTZ?

Absent that, what you describe just sounds like normal vectors to final or to set up a visual. Personally and just looking at the chart without having e ver flown there, that’s what I would have expected, no matter what I filed

 

[RussR]

I’m a little confused. Did you at some earlier point tell ATC you want the ILS 26L self-nav from FTZ?

Absent that, what you describe just sounds like normal vectors to final or to set up a visual. Personally and just looking at the chart without having e ver flown there, that’s what I would have expected, no matter what I filed

@schmookeeg , I agree. It is a towered airport in a radar environment under a Class B airspace. There's no way I'd expect to be doing the full procedure, with course reversal. I wouldn't have even bothered to file that way.

Certainly the ATIS said to expect the ILS or Visuals (depending on the weather) to runway 26's, so coming from the opposite side, vectors would be the normal routine.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I wouldn't have even bothered to file that way.

I might very well have filed that route, but not because FTZ is an approach transition. In terms of the direction of flight, it looks like a sensible arrival gateway fix.

But I would have definitely expected vectors at or before reaching it.

 

[geezer]

In the modern world, with redundant everything, some old requirements are forgotten.

I was taught to file a complete flight plan, all the way to the intended approach procedure.

I was also taught to expect to fly whatever ATC gave me.

The reason for the first, if communications are lost, ATC and you know just what you will fly, all the way to the runway. Schmookeeg and ATC would have had equally difficult problems deciding what he would do, selecting the maneuvers to be done enroute to the runway.



Lost Communications is impossible in the sort of plane he was flying:

2 engines, turning 2 alternators, feeding 2 batteries, and at least 2 communication radios, and 2 antennae. What could go wrong?



White smoke, and the smell of burning insulation flowing from the center of the instrument panel, and it continues to increase until the avionics master is turned off.



Now what does he, or you, do? With a full flight plan originally filed, no problem, whip out your personal GPS and navigator, fly as filed.



When I had my radio stack fire, I was in visual conditions, but after that, I had a light weight box under the seat with a battery, Garmin legal IFR handheld, and an aviation com, with connectors to use the aircraft antennae.

But I still filed all the way to the intended approach procedure. My CFII required it, and I agreed from the start of my training. Even pop ups included an approach intended.

If all went well, I flew whatever ATC threw at me, but the fall back was there.

 

[schmookeeg]

I’m a little confused. Did you at some earlier point tell ATC you want the ILS 26L self-nav from FTZ?

Absent that, what you describe just sounds like normal vectors to final or to set up a visual. Personally and just looking at the chart without having e ver flown there, that’s what I would have expected, no matter what I filed

Nope, no approaches or expectations had been discussed as I was sailing toward the clearance limit.

So I suppose I was the Karen looking for my Latte after all And that Latte was cold. No tip for the Baristae of STL Approach.

 

[Larry in TN]

I don't have any set rule for how long before a clearance limit I request further clearance. (BTW, "Request further clearance" is excellent phraseology to use in such a situation) It depends on the situation.

When there is an approach control for your airport, you should expect vectors to an approach, or for the visual, in most situations. On your initial call to the approach facility they should advise of the approach to expect. If they don't, that's a good time to ask.

The last thing that an approach controller is expecting you to do is to enter a hold over the airport. He knows where you are and will move you when he needs to. For that reason, I'd wait until pretty close to the limit before asking. Probably about a minute from the fix, in your situation. I would, "Request a heading after [fix]".

With an approach control, listen to where the airplanes are, in the approach process, that he's talking to. If you're 20 miles out and he's giving flights their incept vectors then that's more important (to him) than you at that point. He knows you're there. He'll call you when he needs you.

 

[schmookeeg]

I was brooding more about this this morning, and I think I did one other thing wrong, and one other thing needs a "tune up" for this situation.

First, I called with the ATIS one sector too early. Usually I use that as a springboard for the "say approach request..." conversation, but it wasn't that dude's concern, so my mind went to other chores. I should have used the subsequent frequency change as a call to action to assert my approach request instead of just waiting for them to come to me.

So the tune up -- and what I'm going to add to my trick bag -- is to pay attention to the approach freq on the approach plates, and try to tell THAT person the ATIS and my request. That won't always work where I usually fly, but I think it's a decent thing to pay attention to, and I have not been doing that. That might have allowed me to understand "this is my final approach controller" and get my homework taken care of in a more assertive fashion by prompting with an approach request.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Nope, no approaches or expectations had been discussed as I was sailing toward the clearance limit.

So I suppose I was the Karen looking for my Latte after all And that Latte was cold. No tip for the Baristae of STL Approach.

Not really. heading to a towered airport it's hard to imaging the ATIS saying nothing about the approach in use, even if it's the visual. Into non-towered Approach will ask. But the point is that filing an IAF or other transition fix, whatever it's merits may be for other purposes, is not a signal about what approach you want. And if you want someting g other than advertised, you need to ask.

But let me go back to another question.

as I was sailing toward the clearance limit.

Your clearance limit wasn’t the airport?

When ATC originally read you the clearance and you read it back, was it, "cleared to the Forestell VOR via..." (VORt clearance limit) or "Cleared to the Spirit of St Louis airport via..." (destination clearance limit)? I gotta say in more than 30 years of flying instruments, I have never been cleared to an enroute VOR; only the destination airport. If the airport was originally your clearance limit, what happened along the way to make you think the VOR was your clearance limit instead and not just an enroute waypoint?

 

[Larry in TN]

is to pay attention to the approach freq on the approach plates, and try to tell THAT person the ATIS and my request.

It should be to the first APPROACH controller you talk to. He is the one who should be telling you what approach to expect and verifying that you have the current ATIS.

 

[midlifeflyer]

First, I called with the ATIS one sector too early. Usually I use that as a springboard for the "say approach request..." conversation, but it wasn't that dude's concern, so my mind went to other chores. I should have used the subsequent frequency change as a call to action to assert my approach request instead of just waiting for them to come to me.

So the tune up -- and what I'm going to add to my trick bag -- is to pay attention to the approach freq on the approach plates, and try to tell THAT person the ATIS and my request.

Calling a sector early wasn't wrong. The way sectors change around based on workload, even the approach frequency on the plate is far from a guarantee that it's your final controller. I can give you airports where the frequency on the plate is rarely if ever used. So go ahead and ask early. I think that's especially true when what ATIS is advertising (and what everyone else is doing) is not what you want. An early request gives ATC a chance to figure out if they can fit your request into the flow.

On a separate note, I'm sure it happens from time to time, but the only two times I expect to hear, "say approach request" are (a) when my destination is non-towered airport and (b) when I have informed ATC in some way we're practicing approaches.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It should be to the first APPROACH controller you talk to. He is the one who should be telling you what approach to expect and verifying that you have the current ATIS.

Even that is not universal. Fly from Virginia to New Hampshire IFR below 10,000' and you will only be speaking with approach controllers. Same for much of California, particularly SOCAL. I doubt Dulles Approach cares that you want the RNAV 35 into Concord, NH

My personal guideline is much simpler. Once I'm in the approach environment, if it hasn't come up yet, I'll say it. By "approach environment" I mean I'm in airspace where I feel I am close enough that something should be happening. It may be the one where I hear other pilots on frequency reporting the ATIS or "1-minute weather." That's usually a good clue.

 

[schmookeeg]

Hmm... I'm mentally putting myself in the weeds here it seems.

My clearance limit was the airport.

So... what do I do if I arrive over the airport with no further clearance in hand? No pause button installed in the panel

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hmm... I'm mentally putting myself in the weeds here it seems.

My clearance limit was the airport.

So... what do I do if I arrive over the airport with no further clearance in hand? No pause button installed in the panel

Sorry, it's humorous, but I can't even picture that happening unless you have been lost comm for at least the past half hour.

 

[schmookeeg]

Sorry, it's humorous, but I can't even picture that happening unless you have been lost comm for at least the past half hour.

So you see why I think 2nm is "too tight" to not know my next move? And why I want something in my routine to prompt closing such a gap

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

Sorry, it's humorous, but I can't even picture that happening unless you have been lost comm for at least the past half hour.

You obviously have not flown into St Louis.

I give them a bad grade when asked my opinion (which no one did). I'm not a fan of their procedures. And sometimes they just drop off frequency for a while. It's weird. And now our Charlie is consolidated with their tracon. Wasn't too happy about that.

When flying to SUS I stay ready to advocate for myself because otherwise they may forget about you or put you in weird places.

I will say that my last transit (not landing) of their airspace was the most pleasant I've had. Was dealing with weather and they were very accommodating.

 

[Larry in TN]

Fly from Virginia to New Hampshire IFR below 10,000' and you will only be speaking with approach controllers.

The approach control serving your destination.

So... what do I do if I arrive over the airport with no further clearance in hand? No pause button installed in the panel

Request further clearance. I would start making that request when, approaching the airport, the controller fails to give a vector that would be reasonable for the approach I was told to expect. If they're going to take you over the airport they should have told you so they shouldn't be surprised when you ask.

You are setting up an unusual situation where ATIS did not specify an approach, the approach controller(s) did not tell you what approach to expect, and you reached the airport without receiving either a vector or further clearance. If they don't like what you do when over the airport it isn't your fault for not being able to read their mind.

 

[eman1200]

You obviously have not flown into St Louis.

I give them a bad grade when asked my opinion (which no one did). I'm not a fan of their procedures. And sometimes they just drop off frequency for a while. It's weird. And now our Charlie is consolidated with their tracon. Wasn't too happy about that.

When flying to SUS I stay ready to advocate for myself because otherwise they may forget about you or put you in weird places....

I also have not flown there, and I understand there are regional differences, but this comment and the OP's makes it sound like ATC is PIC of your flights instead of you. next time, don these:








and ask for/tell them what you want somewhere in this area:




of course, I was not there so this is easy for me to say whilst sitting my fat ass on the couch, but still, that's mostly what I would have done, methinks.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So you see why I think 2nm is "too tight" to not know my next move? And why I want something in my routine to prompt closing such a gap

Absolutely. ATC “losing” you is not unheard of. This situation is a little different but see if it provides a hint or two.

 

[dtuuri]

"KSUS as a fix" was not a clearance limit, IMO. You had no reason conveyed to expect a delay, no holding instructions nor EFC. Like on many STARs, I'd expect a vector at the last fix. Lost comm? Go shoot an approach.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

It was St Louis approach. That's all I'm gonna say.

I was thinking it too.

 

[schmookeeg]

Okay. I'm at peace with how things resolved now. I have those pants ordered via Amazon Prime @eman1200 Honestly, that was the problem here. Passivity as PIC.

I think entry into unfamiliar approach airspace will be my "do I have an approach that I want? let's assert it now" prompt.

I am unqualified to join the "STL sux0rz" refrain. They seemed fine enough and got it done.

Thanks all for indulging the chatter and rubber-ducking that out with me.