Odd approach clearance...am I an idiot or did ATC screw up?

[DXB]

This just happened. I was at 3000ft and getting vectors to final for the RNAV (LNAV + V) Rwy 15 at KPNE. I have flown this approach at my home drome many times.  See my aircraft position on approach plate below - I was in and out of IMC, assigned altitude 3000, assigned heading 240. Ceiling was about 1500.  From my shown position, I was expecting an intercept heading for the final approach course along with the approach clearance.  Instead I just got this clearance: "Fly direct PACKS [the FAF]. Maintain 3000 until established on a published portion of the procedure [she actually went to the trouble to say that full phrase].  Cleared RNAV Rwy 15."    Sources of my confusion:

1.  If vectoring someone to final, I thought ATC was obligated to give an intercept a certain distance outside the FAF.  I have never been told to start the procedure at the FAF. Isn't this against the rules?!

2. Telling me to start the procedure at the FAF and maintain 3000 until that point leaves me diving for the MDA with the advisory glideslope at full deflection.  Asking me to do this inside the FAF in IMC seems unreasonable. 

So should I be irritated at Philly TRACON, or are my admittedly amateurish IFR skills simply still not up to snuff in this case?

Edited September 2, 2019 by DXB

[midlifeflyer]

If it occurred exactly as you said, the controller made a mistake - they are human too. Is it available on Live ATC? The controller should have given you an intercept to the extended FAC with that instruction, something like, "fly heading 180 to join the final approach course. Maintain 3,000 until established. Cleared for the..." so you could start the 1600' descent to 1400.. Even "Direct KEHSO, cleared straight in" might make sense.

And yes, that is a heck of a dive and drive. If it happened that way, I'd at least file a NASA report; perhaps, if I had the audio, I'd  call TRACON to discuss.

But your completely  unofficial advisory glideslope is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[ArtVandelay]

Sounds like they wanted to lighten their workload. Speed brakes would come in handy, I probably would have cheated a little and just intercepted the leg a mile out from the FAF.


Tom

[midlifeflyer]

...actually, I would have said something as soon as I received the instruction.

[DXB]

1 minute ago, midlifeflyer said:

If it occurred exactly as you said, the controller made a mistake. Id it available on Live ATC? He or she should have given you an intercept to the extended FAC with that instruction, something like, "fly heading 180 to join the final approach course. Maintain 3,000 until established. Cleared for the..." so you could start the 1600' descent to 1400.

And yes, that is a heck of a dive and drive. If it happened that way, I'd at least file a NASA report; perhaps, if I had the audio, I'd  call TRACON to discuss.

But your completely  unofficial advisory glideslope is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

 

Thanks gonna pull the tape now and call Philly TRACON and also file NASA.  I'm confident it went down this way.   I seem to be getting this kind of sloppiness in Philly more often lately for some reason - they used to be great.   I mention the pegged advisory glideslope merely to indicate that I was being asked to come down unreasonably steep in IMC on final approach, not that the glideslope has any official role in the approach.  I broke out at 1500 about 2 miles from the rwy, which is still within my ability to produce a reasonable landing -  had ceilings been lower and the IMC been more solid, I would have balked.

[DXB]

7 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Sounds like they wanted to lighten their workload. Speed brakes would come in handy, I probably would have cheated a little and just intercepted the leg a mile out from the FAF.


Tom

Yeah that's exactly what I ended up doing, cheating onto the approach course a bit a couple miles from the FAF and then starting down. I was still about 2600ish at the FAF.   It would have made most sense to question the controller immediately, but these snap decisions are tough for a relatively inexperienced pilot who gets confused at a high workload time.   

[ArtVandelay]

Yeah that's exactly what I ended up doing, cheating onto the approach course a bit a couple miles from the FAF and then starting down. I was still about 2600ish at the FAF.   It would have made most sense to question the controller immediately, but these snap decisions are tough for a relatively inexperienced pilot who gets confused at a high workload time.   

The problem with questioning the controller, is you’re already in a high workload mode and have very little time to get started on the approach. You spend a minute trying to argue with the controller and you end up having to be re-sequenced. I would just try and if I failed to get established, do the missed approach, then talked to the controller when asked on the miss what your intentions are. With RNAV I would ask for full approach, your autopilot is your friend.


Tom

[DXB]

I pulled the tape. Relevant portion starts at 27:45ish.  My callsign is 71L.  I didn't get the quoted wording perfect in the post above, but I think the meaning of the controller instruction is the same I think.  She told me to go left direct PACKS rather than intercept the final approach course, told me to maintain 3000 until established. She didn't sound that busy, and it would have been no more work to give me an intercept heading rather than tell me go direct PACKS.  I don't get it.

I spoke with Philly TRACON - they were polite and receptive.

 

 

KPNE-App-Sep-02-2019-1530Z download.mp3

Edited September 2, 2019 by DXB

[Andy95W]

I can't say for sure, but there's a chance your position as depicted on the approach plate was more precisely shown than on her radar screen.  Depending on the scale her screen was set to, she might have thought you were directly on the final course so she gave the instructions that made sense to her as she saw your location.  

Or- and probably more likely- she didn't realize that PACkS was the FAF, and she simply made a mistake.  

[midlifeflyer]

53 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

The problem with questioning the controller, is you’re already in a high workload mode and have very little time to get started on the approach. You spend a minute trying to argue with the controller and you end up having to be re-sequenced. I would just try and if I failed to get established, do the missed approach, then talked to the controller when asked on the miss what your intentions are. With RNAV I would ask for full approach, your autopilot is your friend.


Tom

I disagree. Here's why. 

1. @DXB is familiar. Even if not, in the scenario I know I am way high. My approach briefing tells me to expect lower earlier or even the IAF at MAZIE, but that could be traffic (although if I were a stranger, I'd be asking for lower). But my approach briefing* also tells me to expect direct KEHSO straight in (if a little earlier) or, at worst, an intercept to the FAC well outside.  Direct PACKS, maintain 3,000 until PACKS makes no sense (speed brakes notwithstanding :D).  
2. It does not take a lot of time or arguments to suggest a heading to join the FAC. "How about 180 to join the FAC?" or even "how about a heading to join the FAC?" takes about the same amount of time as the "normal" readback.
3. As it is, this is the kind of drive and dive which could easily lead to problems. Passengers ears hurting fro the rapid descent; going missed; maybe worse - that will be a bigger problem to busy airspace than a few extra seconds to clarify.

* I see too many discussions suggesting he approach briefing is a bunch of numbers. Personally, I think the most important part of the approach chart is the plan view.

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[midlifeflyer]

51 minutes ago, DXB said:

I pulled the tape. Relevant portion starts at 27:45ish.  My callsign is 71L.  I didn't get the quoted wording perfect in the post above, but I think the meaning of the controller instruction is the same I think.  She told me to go left direct PACKS rather than intercept the final approach course, told me to maintain 3000 until established. She didn't sound that busy, and it would have been no more work to give me an intercept heading rather than tell me go direct PACKS.  I don't get it.

I spoke with Philly TRACON - they were polite and receptive.

 

 

KPNE-App-Sep-02-2019-1530Z download.mp3 3.63 MB · 5 downloads

I listened. My bet is on just a mistake. I'm guessing the intention was a FAC intercept.

Edit: Thinking about it more,  I wouldn't be surprised if she was going to give you Direct KEHSO, but she was late. There was that tiny bit of hesitation in her voice.

Edited September 2, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[DXB]

47 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

It does not take a lot of time or arguments to suggest a heading to join the FAC. "How about 180 to join the FAC?" or even "how about a heading to join the FAC?" takes about the same amount of time as the "normal" readback.

Thank you - I agree this may have been the single best way to  handle the situation if I could have come up with it in the moment. I've gotten more assertive with ATC in the modest 1.5 years of IFR experience under my belt (particularly when it comes to dodging weather), but my lack of confidence when I get an instruction that doesn't make sense is still hard to overcome sometimes - discussing with folks like you here helps a lot.

[midlifeflyer]

On 9/2/2019 at 4:28 PM, DXB said:

Thank you - I agree this may have been the single best way to  handle the situation if I could have come up with it in the moment. I've gotten more assertive with ATC in the modest 1.5 years of IFR experience under my belt (particularly when it comes to dodging weather), but my lack of confidence when I get an instruction that doesn't make sense is still hard to overcome sometimes - discussing with folks like you here helps a lot.

I'll (we all will) be curious to hear what they say when/if they get back to you. But it is experiences like this which teach us to question.

Edited September 5, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[Immelman]

This is one of those cases where you need to immediately ask the controller for clarification, and to tell them if necessary that you cannot accept the clearance because you'll be unable to descend that rapidly. If they don't catch you you can suggest an alternative, like a heading to intercept.... or just tell them you need that from the get-go.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Immelman

[Ragsf15e]

Agree they probably messed up.  They have fairly specific rules on how far before the faf they have to get you an intercept onto final.  It’s weather dependent too.  Either way, proceeding directly to the faf isn’t good for all the reasons above.  Would’ve been tough at the time, but “request an intercept heading to final” might have got what you expected.  That was probably an uncomfortable descent.

[Ragsf15e]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

I listened. My bet is on just a mistake. I'm guessing the intention was a FAC intercept.

Edit: Thinking about it more,  I wouldn't be surprised if she was going to give you Direct KEHSO, but she was late. There was that tiny bit of hesitation in her voice.

I don’t disagree with most of what you said above, but if she was gonna give him direct KEHSO, that’s an IF, not an IAF and his turn at the point would have to be less than 90 degrees.  Seems from his position, it would’ve been much more?

[midlifeflyer]

58 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

I don’t disagree with most of what you said above, but if she was gonna give him direct KEHSO, that’s an IF, not an IAF and his turn at the point would have to be less than 90 degrees.  Seems from his position, it would’ve been much more?

Agreed. The direct KEHSO would have come much earlier. I keep mentally going back an forth on what the controller probably intended to do. That's why either thought is only a guess. My crystal ball never worked that well.

[Marauder]

Dev - I think there might be too much thinking going on about her intention. If you listen to the entire audio clip you provided, you hear her give a Trenton tower instruction to a plane she already gave the instruction to and then tries to give it again and even switches to a backup radio because she was convinced they didn’t get the instruction.

 

I think what she intended to give you was a “intercept the final approach course” probably because she thought you were close to a direct course to PACKS. And instead of saying that, she told you to proceed direct to PACKS. What was your needle deflection when she issued the clearance? It’s hard to determine from your overly large airplane on the chart.

 

The scaling of the GPS CDI will change depending on the segment. If you were within a half CDI deflection of the leg between KEHSO & PACKS, and given the “Direct to PACKS”, I would have considered myself “established” and begun descending to the 1400’ altitude for the leg to PACKS while maneuvering to stay close to the published leg. I’m sure that was her intention.

 

Having flown into Philly satellite airports for years, I’ve learned to expect the unexpected. The radio is your friend...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ilovecornfields]

Interesting topic. When I first got my instrument rating I felt like what ATC told me to do was an order and it was my responsibility to follow it exactly. Over time, I’ve come to realize that ATC instructions are offers which you can accept or reject. In fact, as PIC you have not only the option but the responsibility to reject ATC instructions which jeopardize the safety of flight.

Ive had several instances where doing what ATC told me to do would have potentially harmed myself or someone else. Realistically, I think about 99.5% of what ATC tells me to do I agree with, but part of your responsibility is to find that 0.5% that is unsafe and call them on it.

From the comfort of my couch, here is what I might have done:

ATC: Fly direct PACKS, maintain 3000 until established, clear RNAV (although they should have included a distance to the fix).

ME: Unable. That would not put me in a position to make a stabilized approach and landing. I would like to vectors to the final approach course.

Would it have worked? I don’t know. Bottom line is that if you don’t feel it’s safe, you don’t have to do it. I have found > 99% of air traffic controllers to be professional and reasonable so I think the odds are in your favor. We’re all human and make mistakes but fortunately we have the same goal when it comes to arriving safely so it should be rare that you can’t work something out.

Thank you for sharing your experience.

Edited September 5, 2019 by ilovecornfields

[donkaye, MCFI]

The best Article I've read on assertively interacting with ATC, by Mike Bush is below.  After reading it, now what would you do again in the same circumstance?

Let's Make a Deal.pdf

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, donkaye said:

The best Article I've read on assertively interacting with ATC, by Mike Bush is below.  After reading it, now what would you do again in the same circumstance?

Let's Make a Deal.pdf 2.32 MB · 5 downloads

Thanks - good read.

...and he knows not just engines but controllers too!

[cbarry]

Knowing you were not going to be on a stabilized approach (in and out of IMC), after receiving the ATC instruction (mistakenly or not), please remember this was a classic time to use the word unable.  You most likely would have then received a “fly heading...maintain...until established” instruction...or simply “fly heading...” and been vectored for another approach—both giving more time to fly the approach as published.  

[DXB]

8 hours ago, donkaye said:

The best Article I've read on assertively interacting with ATC, by Mike Bush is below.  After reading it, now what would you do again in the same circumstance?

Let's Make a Deal.pdf 2.32 MB · 23 downloads

That is indeed a GREAT article! A caveat is that being a savvy negotiator has a learning curve and takes some experience.  I now gone from a brand new baby IFR pilot to one in the awkward adolescent phase, just trying out these negotiating skills, seeing what works.  But one certainly has to try to negotiate in order to develop the skills over time.

[donkaye, MCFI]

I've rarely been denied a request.  ATC listens to pilots all day long.  They can tell whose up to the task.  I always start my requests with. "If able,...."  They then know I'm looking after them as well as myself.

[DXB]

14 hours ago, Marauder said:

I think what she intended to give you was a “intercept the final approach course” probably because she thought you were close to a direct course to PACKS. And instead of saying that, she told you to proceed direct to PACKS. What was your needle deflection when she issued the clearance? It’s hard to determine from your overly large airplane on the chart.

 

The scaling of the GPS CDI will change depending on the segment. If you were within a half CDI deflection of the leg between KEHSO & PACKS, and given the “Direct to PACKS”, I would have considered myself “established” and begun descending to the 1400’ altitude for the leg to PACKS while maneuvering to stay close to the published leg. I’m sure that was her intention.

 

Having flown into Philly satellite airports for years, I’ve learned to expect the unexpected. The radio is your friend...

 

My needle was at full deflection for the FAC. And even if  I were already very close to the FAC,  telling me go direct to the FAF is simply the wrong way to issue the approach clearance - it goes against the most basic rules for controllers giving vectors to final and shouldn't ever happen in Philly or anywhere else.  Last night I had a discussion with my favorite instructor, who reviewed the tape as well.  I wound up agreeing with him - controllers know the rules for how to vector someone onto final very well, and it's unlikely this controller would violate those ingrained rules deliberately.  Instead, she simply brain farted by thinking PACKS was an IAF or IF and not the FAF.   If that was really what she was thinking, then my saying "how about 180 to join the FAC?" as @midlifeflyer suggests might have led her to see her mistake but also might have generated more confusion if she didn't.  My instructor suggested something like "you want me to cross the FAF at 3000 and then start the procedure?"  to make it clear she was sending me direct to the FAF.  Regardless, my brain was poised at that point to hand fly an intercept (basic autopilot) and proved not plastic enough to shift into analyzing what was going on when I got that bizarre instruction.