PilotEdge Forums

Good Afternoon/Evening

I hope this is a quick question and that I am asking it correctly

This evening I was going into KSBA and was told to expect the approach VOR 25 @ KWANG , well KWANG came and gone and nothing.

So I queried the approach controller and not sure if it was radio issues but still no clearance.

So my question is how long after the the fix or location I was told to expect the approach clearance should I query the controller or just hang out until they remember me?

Thanks

BTW - I want to say even when things are busy, people are confused the controllers keep a very level head and seem to maintain great composure. Get up the great work/service.

If you ever think you should be cleared "by now," don't hesitate to ask ATC. ATC should always issue you a reason for a delay of any kind. For example "Expect vectors off of KWANG for sequencing" or if you're being vectored to final and you think you might go through the localizer, ATC should have said something like "Expect vectors across the final approach course for spacing." If reasons such as these have not been given and you are nearing your approach point, don't hesitate to try to get clarification from ATC on the situation. Sometimes, it's simply a matter of being distracted with another pilot who is in a more time-sensitive situation.

I was reading this thread and thinking about what I would have done in the same circumstance.

Question. Did the original IFR clearance include the destination airport (KSBA)?

What was your cleared altitude at KWANG?

I got to be honest here. If the following are all true:

• Clearance limit includes destination airport
• original flight plan included the IAF. In this case KWANG
• the controller told me to expect VOR 25 approach at KWANG
• Was cleared to a low enough altitude to make the approach possible? In this case the IAF altitude is listed as 2100 feet

KSBA VOR 25 approach plate: http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1408/pdf/00378VG25.PDF

I'm fairly sure I would have turned towards the airport as if clearance had been given (right or wrong). THEN if it happen to hit me that I really didn't have clearance, I would make the call to ATC for a double check.

To me the biggest question is what was the altitude when about 12 NM from KWANG. If still at cruising altitude (6,000 for the TEC route), I'm certain I would have contacted ATC for guidance. Why? Because too high to perform the approach as published.

I'd pretty much do that but I think we'd be wrong from a technical standpoint... What I would usually say is "verify N12345 cleared Vor 25 approach?" or something like "approach, N12345 about to cross KWANG, verify cleared for the approach?"

I'm curious about ATC operations and work load management. But if the controller is busy, why wouldn't he/she just issue an instruction before KWANG such as:

xxx cross KWANG at or above 2100. Cleared VOR 25 approach.

If the controller gets tied up with someone else, this makes the pilot part of the solution. The controller has many flights to monitor. The pilot only one.

I think this also could make better pilots. IE this forces the pilot to PLAN when to descend instead of waiting for the controller to just tell when to descend.

wmburns wrote:I was reading this thread and thinking about what I would have done in the same circumstance.
...
I got to be honest here. If the following are all true:

• Clearance limit includes destination airport
• original flight plan included the IAF. In this case KWANG
  ...

Wait. I'm mostly clogging up the skyways as a VFR Pilot, but filed IFR plans don't typically include SID, STAR, or specific approaches, do they? I thought the SID was issued when you are issued your flight plan clearance, and that STARs and Approaches are issued enroute. Am I off-base?

Sometimes DP/STAR's are filed by the pilot/operator... sometimes they're assigned by ATC.

As for the approaches... typically for GA I'd file the start of an approach (IAF) as the last point on my flight plan, especially to uncontrolled fields... But you're right you won't actually get approach clearance until you're closer to destination.

In the specific OP case this is a TEC route - the routing you'll get assigned everytime by ATC.... and surprise - it does include KWANG on the TEC route - this is by design I'm sure.

Rick Stratman wrote:This evening I was going into KSBA and was told to expect the approach VOR 25 @ KWANG , well KWANG came and gone and nothing.

So I queried the approach controller and not sure if it was radio issues but still no clearance.

I was the controller who worked you last week. I cleared you for the approach when you were directly over KWANG, albeit a little late. You handled it well.

If it happens again, all you need to do is give us a little reminder. To queue the pilot to do that, I'll sometimes include "Expect approach clearance within 5 miles of [fix]." If traffic is no factor we would normally issue the clearance much sooner than that.

HRutila wrote:

Rick Stratman wrote:This evening I was going into KSBA and was told to expect the approach VOR 25 @ KWANG , well KWANG came and gone and nothing.

So I queried the approach controller and not sure if it was radio issues but still no clearance.

I was the controller who worked you last week. I cleared you for the approach when you were directly over KWANG, albeit a little late. You handled it well.

If it happens again, all you need to do is give us a little reminder. To queue the pilot to do that, I'll sometimes include "Expect approach clearance within 5 miles of [fix]." If traffic is no factor we would normally issue the clearance much sooner than that.

In away I am glad it happened, and I know there was just a little bit of traffic. I just wanted to make sure I was doing the correct thing, as when I am getting close like that I double checking items on the plates and have been know to miss calls or only get a portion of the call.

The other item I missed was the fact was the beginning point of the approach.

Last question would it have been a normal request in that situation to request a 360 turn to allow me to loose some attitude or vector to allow me to loose altitude, or just plan on doing a go around? I did manage to get down, but I had to do a rather steep descent to loose altitude.

Any how thanks for all the input.

Controllers keep up the good work

Rick Stratman wrote:Last question would it have been a normal request in that situation to request a 360 turn to allow me to loose some attitude or vector to allow me to loose altitude, or just plan on doing a go around? I did manage to get down, but I had to do a rather steep descent to loose altitude.

We can't authorize a left 360 when you're operating under IFR rules, but a request for a vector could work. A go-around is something that happens in the runway environment, not that far out on an approach.