Debriefing after possible ATC blunder today

[DXB]

So I'm flying into KPNE this morning.  Field is reporting 600 OVC with the RNAV Rwy 6 approach in use, and I'm gettng vectored by Philly TRACON, heading in the general direction of the field from the south, kinda expecting to get direct WAMCA as the IF based on my position.  I'm descending through 3500 with an almost direct tailwind, and  I'm then told descend 2500 and fly heading 040 to intercept the final approach course.  I fly 040 for a few moments before realizing that takes me away from the approach course.  In retrospect,  I think the controller subtracted 20 degrees from 060 rather than adding it (080 would have been about right).  After a few moments confusion, I speak up and get told to fly heading 110 and then 120 and am cleared for the approach, though now  I'm uncomfortably close to the FAF.  I'm also skimming the top of the clouds at this point, where I have to do much more than a standard rate turn  to avoid flying through the approach course. I then descend and land uneventfully, thinking I probably should have said "unable" and asked to get vectored back around.  I'm pretty confident it's against the rules to be given a 60 degree intercept angle, and I recognize the controller's voice from prior encounters in which she seemed erratic and also had too much attitude.  I thought about calling TRACON once on the ground.   Am I over-reacting? Or not irritated enough?

 

[N201MKTurbo]

Just be happy it all turned out OK.

The TRACON guys around here don’t want to get pilots in trouble, so let’s give them the same courtesy.

[toto]

Imo you’re doing the right thing by thinking this through and debriefing your actions. You landed safely, no bent metal, but you might do it differently with an “unable” next time. If you wanted to fill out an ASRS form, you could get all of these thoughts on paper and perhaps help the next person in a similar situation.

If you think there is some disciplinary action warranted against the controller, I’m pretty sure that there is an anonymous safety reporting program for ATC. But I don’t know the details of that - hopefully one of the controllers on MS will have insight. I’ve certainly had my share of events where I thought the controller was in the wrong, but it’s hard to know what else s/he was dealing with at the same time, and I just generally try to be graceful about it and assume the best intentions. 

[0TreeLemur]

I've been in the same kind of situation.   It is important to ask yourself if there is anything you could have done differently that would have put you in a better position and be less susceptible to their whims.  The word "unable" is a great one.  I had to use that in January when I got vectored as if I was in the pattern and they turned me right into the FAF while still too fast and high.  At first I was a little more than annoyed at what I perceived as an attempt to slam-dunk me.  After I went around again at 90 knots and landed, it occurred to me that I should have slowed down earlier not knowing what kind of vectors I was going to get. 

[bonal]

Perhaps you should get the controller an AOA indicator to help with that erratic attitude 

[anthonydesmet]

Another preemptive call I like before having to say “unable” is “say intentions for 2 RV” when I’m unsure of the purpose of the vector or altitude (or attitude) of ATC.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, anthonydesmet said:

Another preemptive call I like before having to say “unable” is “say intentions for 2 RV” when I’m unsure of the purpose of the vector or altitude (or attitude) of ATC.

Wow. I've been asked by ATC ti "say intensions" but never thought to ask them. 

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Wow. I've been asked by ATC ti "say intensions" but never thought to ask them. 

Not so sure about the “say intentions” phrasing, but it your situational awareness tells you a vector is taking you away from where you are going, and there is not explanation as to why, definitely question it.

[GeeBee]

Listen to her!

 

[anthonydesmet]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

Wow. I've been asked by ATC ti "say intensions" but never thought to ask them. 

I’ve used it many times in my military life and in my Mooney. It doesnt say anywhere only ATC can use it.   On all occasions ATC appreciated the fact that we (me and ATC) might not have been on the same page.  A couple of times they just plain forgot about me because they were so busy.
I like it more than saying, “why the 020 vector?” Or “hey, I’m still on a 020 vector”.  ATC may be planning/coordinating and they might not have had time to fill you in on their plan yet or thought they did.  Kind of goes a long the lines of, when in doubt ask, with giving them the courtesy of not second guessing their job.  
 

as in above example, if the 020 looks like it’s not going to get me to final then “say intentions”. If she responded “vectors to final” then she just opened a perfect opportunity for DXB to say “020 isn’t going to get me there, how about 080?” …ahhhh now we are all on the same page and preventing a last minute bat turn to final……or she could have come back and said, “I need you 020 to get around departing traffic…or whatever.”

 

just my two cents of something that’s worked out well for me over the years…

[N201MKTurbo]

If you were unhappy with what happened, right after you landed, call TRACON on the phone, say who you are and where you landed. Ask them to have the controller who worked you call you back when they have time. Then you can talk about it. You may end up having coffee together talking about airplanes.

[Skates97]

17 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Just be happy it all turned out OK.

The TRACON guys around here don’t want to get pilots in trouble, so let’s give them the same courtesy.

That's been my experience with most controllers. Last Wednesday talking to Vegas Approach I heard, "Novemberxxx, FYI when you departed Henderson you climbed right through my Bravo and I had to move guys around, just letting you know." Pilot responded with "Sorry, I thought we had stayed under." There wasn't anything else said about it, thought that was nice of the approach controller.

13 hours ago, 0TreeLemur said:

I've been in the same kind of situation.   It is important to ask yourself if there is anything you could have done differently that would have put you in a better position and be less susceptible to their whims.  The word "unable" is a great one.  I had to use that in January when I got vectored as if I was in the pattern and they turned me right into the FAF while still too fast and high.  At first I was a little more than annoyed at what I perceived as an attempt to slam-dunk me.  After I went around again at 90 knots and landed, it occurred to me that I should have slowed down earlier not knowing what kind of vectors I was going to get. 

Did this just last night coming back into FUL. Was in the clouds from about 7,500' until 2,700' just after I intercepted final. I was getting vectored around. The controller had told me the vectors were to get around traffic (assuming keep me out of the arrivals into SNA and LGB). I could see he was pointing me at the IF but could also see at the speed I was going he wasn't going to be able to give me much time to descend and cross it at 3,000' because of the 4,000' hills below. I pulled some power to slow down and buy time. Was still 100' high passing the IF but if I hadn't slowed down it would have been a slam dunk.

[PT20J]

21 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Just be happy it all turned out OK.

The TRACON guys around here don’t want to get pilots in trouble, so let’s give them the same courtesy.

THISS^^^ People make mistakes.

[DXB]

9 hours ago, anthonydesmet said:

I’ve used it many times in my military life and in my Mooney. It doesnt say anywhere only ATC can use it.   On all occasions ATC appreciated the fact that we (me and ATC) might not have been on the same page.  A couple of times they just plain forgot about me because they were so busy.
I like it more than saying, “why the 020 vector?” Or “hey, I’m still on a 020 vector”.  ATC may be planning/coordinating and they might not have had time to fill you in on their plan yet or thought they did.  Kind of goes a long the lines of, when in doubt ask, with giving them the courtesy of not second guessing their job.  
 

as in above example, if the 020 looks like it’s not going to get me to final then “say intentions”. If she responded “vectors to final” then she just opened a perfect opportunity for DXB to say “020 isn’t going to get me there, how about 080?” …ahhhh now we are all on the same page and preventing a last minute bat turn to final……or she could have come back and said, “I need you 020 to get around departing traffic…or whatever.”

 

just my two cents of something that’s worked out well for me over the years…

This is why I love posting my minor misadventures on here - learning from more experienced folks and picking up new tools like this to better handle the situations.   The reason for posting was not to identify clever ways to get the controller in trouble (though I was  pissed when I landed) but rather to develop new neural pathways to manage previously unfamiliar situations - here being given an intercept vector that doesn't actually cross the approach course, and then getting one that was way too steep when I finally managed to speak up a bit too late.   As an amateur, hand flying an intercept in IMC (with my basic autopilot) is fairly bandwith consuming, so I'm not likely to come up with solutions to novel problems if they come up  - I need a pre-rehearsed mental toolkit. Here I felt in over my head for a minute or two but hopefully will be more ready next time.

[DXB]

8 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

If you were unhappy with what happened, right after you landed, call TRACON on the phone, say who you are and where you landed. Ask them to have the controller who worked you call you back when they have time. Then you can talk about it. You may end up having coffee together talking about airplanes.

In this case it was probably best that I refrained from calling them right after I landed and ranted on Mooneyspace instead 

[dkkim73]

This is a good thread with good advice. 

The comments about being politely proactive and the example of "say intentions" ring true.

While there is value in using std terminology, being concise, and so on, the point is communication, so if you have a good way to accomplish something that might be a bit unusual or even clumsy on the fly, it's probably better than being proper and quiet and unintentionally ending up being mysterious and confused all at once. 

I try to ask for stuff when needed ahead of time to avoid just saying "unable"later. Eg descents. Esp. if I am flying a break in profile or something that they would have no idea about. 

Also sometimes ask when there's a warning about vectors, "hey can i help by going faster or slower"? You know, being a Mooney and all...

[midlifeflyer]

10 hours ago, DXB said:

As an amateur, hand flying an intercept in IMC (with my basic autopilot) is fairly bandwith consuming, so I'm not likely to come up with solutions to novel problems if they come up  - I need a pre-rehearsed mental toolkit. Here I felt in over my head for a minute or two but hopefully will be more ready next time.

The problem is that ATC throws curveballs all the time. I fly out of a nontowered airport where most practice approaches without ATC. When we do a training flight under IFR, almost invariably something happens the pilot has not seen or heard before. My favorite is the time a controller gave an instruction that made no sense for IFR.. Turned out the controller thought we were VFR. 

A suggestion. I think a major part of staying ahead is a combination of big picture situational awareness and a constant, “what’s next” mantra. It can take work to develop the former, but the latter is “simply” a matter of asking, “what’s next laterally and vertically,” as soon as stabilized after the last instruction, leg, whatever. And ensuring that you and the equipment are set up for it. With a little imagination, we can even watch IFR YouTube videos with that mindset  

I don’t do training for the rating, but I sometimes do a tweaking flight or two as part of the 3 hour checkride prep. This is #1 on my list. The applicant, who has understandably felt fire hosed and rushed, reports of everything suddenly slowed down. One actually said, “when are we finally going to get there?” out loud during a leg of an approach. 

[Sue Bon]

On 3/31/2025 at 12:57 PM, Hank said:

Wow. I've been asked by ATC ti "say intensions" but never thought to ask them. 

I usually say "confirm" rather than "say intentions." For example, in this scenario, "confirm heading 040 to intercept ILS runway 06."

[DXB]

1 hour ago, Sue Bon said:

I usually say "confirm" rather than "say intentions." For example, in this scenario, "confirm heading 040 to intercept ILS runway 06."

I like and use the "confirm" phrase , but in this case merely confirming the instruction might not have helped point out that the instruction made zero sense.  I think the instruction was clear in my mind and the controllers mind (fly 040, intercept the GPS Rwy 6 approach course).  She just did the math wrong, perhaps thinking I was on the opposite side of the approach course.

I also like the phrase "say intentions for XX"(learned from this thread) if I'm having trouble anticipating what's next, but it doesn't really seem to apply here either. The controller's intentions here were clear but also nonsenical. I ultimately spoke up and just said "uhhh... I don't think 040 intercepts the approach course".  My mistakes here were that (1) I took too long being baffled before I spoke up and (2) I then I accepted a large intercept angle on a heading of 120, which I then forced to work out with too steep a turn in IMC - I should have said unable and asked to get vectored back around. 

Part of the reason for my excess passivity here may have been related to knowing that this particular controller gives pilots a lot of sass when she gets stressed and/or they dont do exactly what she wants. I was busy flying the airplane while entering IMC and not looking to consume bandwidth in conflict with her.  I still should have spoken up earlier and asked to get vectored back around.

[EricJ]

17 minutes ago, DXB said:

Part of the reason for my excess passivity here may have been related to knowing that this particular controller gives pilots a lot of sass when she gets stressed and/or they dont do exactly what she wants. I was busy flying the airplane while entering IMC and not looking to consume bandwidth in conflict with her.  I still should have spoken up earlier and asked to get vectored back around.

I was gonna say that, that sometimes particular controllers don't like to be challenged at all, especially if their workload is high at that moment (which is typical around here).   Asking "say intentions" sounds a bit more like a challenge than just "confirm" with a question behind it, e.g., "confirm heading xx for Nxxx.   That sends me away from the IAF."   You can still get bit back, but at least you'll be more confident that they're not sending you off to time out or something.

[cliffy]

I guess I just played the game too long

Being self limited to day VFR now is sure a lot less stressful these days when every day is Saturday!  :-)

I can sit back look out the window and watch the world pass under the wings

[DXB]

3 hours ago, EricJ said:

, e.g., "confirm heading xx for Nxxx.   That sends me away from the IAF."  .

perfect

[dkkim73]

On the topic of ATC and April fools Day, I did not fly today and thus never got to respond to "say altitude" with "altitude". 

[Sue Bon]

8 hours ago, DXB said:

knowing that this particular controller gives pilots a lot of sass

I have one controller over Zurich airspace that forces me to roll my r and say tree rather than three. After repeating the frequency 130.560 in my American accent, she will come back and say, "Hotel Foxtrot Alpha, one TDEE zedo" forcing me to say it back that way 

With all the US aircraft landing there, you'd think she'd be used to it, but I am Swiss, with a Swiss reg, so follow the rules I must.

[wombat]

Perhaps the original problem isn't a math problem on the controller's part, it's a timing problem.

They could have been waiting for something before giving you that final turn and clearing you for the approach.  Maybe for another aircraft to pass the MAP or maybe for the end of the episode of Ren And Stimpy or whatever. Doesn't matter.    They expected you to still be to the right of the final approach course and gave you a heading that would work in that case, but you had already flown past it so the heading they gave you no longer worked.

The Seattle Approach controllers fly me through the final approach course fairly often when I am on the approach to Boeing Field (KBFI).    Then I have to get a much larger turn to re-intercept.      

 

The underlying problem here is that you were flying too fast!  If you'd been 10Kt slower, you would have been to the right of the approach course when they gave you that last turn. What speed mods have you done?   Did you get the PowerFlow exhaust?   Did you leave your ram air door open?  Al Mooney strikes again!!