Expect vectoring ...

[1999]

We are having an "academic" debate at my unit about the certain phraseology casses - one of them being "Expect vectoring for ILS App... "
e.g.
An aircraft has been "taken" off the route and sent direct IAF by the previous sector in order to shorten a few track miles and consequently placing it more easily into the sequence for an ILS approach. If the vectoring doesn't take place immediately upon the initial contact with the approach unit the question being discussed is : is the phrase "Expect vectoring for ILS App..." (which isn't as such explicitly stated in any of the ICAO documents) appropriate one or the proper way should be simply stating "Vectoring for ILS App ... fly hdg ..." immediately before commencing actual vectoring.

Now the debate goes on about what the proper phraseology in such case should be and it depends where the subject did their basic training ... those who did it years ago in Langen/Germany claim "german ATC school" allows/uses phrase "EXPECT VECTORING ..." ...
So how do you guys do it at your place? - especially our German colleagues - controllers/pilots are more than welcome to chime in ....
(as a side note :we work under the ICAO rules with no additional State ammendments to the subject)

thanx

1999

[Ivasrus]

This is where the phrase "continue present heading" comes in very handy!

[bookworm]

From a pilot's point of view, the more information (within reason) that you can give about your plans, the better. The more non-standard the plan, the more useful it is for the crew to know the intentions in advance. Although vectoring for an ILS is fairly standard, I'd still appreciate the sharing of the plan.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Usual thing at busy airfields in the UK is for aircraft to be under radar control all the time so that phrase isn't used much nowadays. Aircraft will usually route to a holding area and approach will issue a heading to leave and headings to reach the ILS. During quiet periods, area control may liaise with approach to put the aircraft on a heading to hit the ILS and this will later be confirmed/adjusted by approach.

Many years ago, every aircraft was told "radar positioning (later "vectoring") for the ILS...". When it got busier, this information was transmitted as part of the ATIS information. Now, it is so widely published that no mention is made on R/T! At quieter, smaller, quieter airfields things may be different.

Bookworm wrote: "Although vectoring for an ILS is fairly standard, I'd still appreciate the sharing of the plan."

Do you mean you want explicit details? That may be impossible with traffic nowadays..

[bookworm]

Do you mean you want explicit details? That may be impossible with traffic nowadays.

Indeed it may be impossible sometimes. But it's still useful when it is possible.

[Nightrider]

I underline bookworms comment.

It will be most helpful and not exaggeratedly abuse the radio if a message like "Presently number 8 in sequence, maintain heading and speed for vectoring".

If we all follow the same picture, there will be no doubt about the present scenario.

[samotnik]

Doc. 4444 6.6.1 states what information should be provided to arriving aircraft. As you can see, the first one is the approach procedure and runway. That's why they say 'expect radar vectors for ils rwy XX'. It's nothing more than plain information. 'radar vectors' because ATCo wants to emphasize that it's not a procedural approach and the aircraft will be vectored to final.

[Nubboy]

The more info the better. And the sooner the better.

Perhaps the most useful is the number of track miles to run. We normally have the full approach in the FMS, and to suddenly loose up to 30 track miles, whilst always vey welcome, can leave you well above the new profile.
We've just re-started flying to a lot of destinations in Germany and invariably get massive shortcuts when it's quiet. No problems at all for older hands, but as we have quite a few of these pay 2 fly people going through at the moment, it's bound to put the trainers workload up.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

At a number of major UK airfields CDAs are employed and ATC will pass range from touchdown on descent as part of the standard procedure.

[Nubboy]

Every other impact is at LHR, and that's where I've developed the taste for it. It's SO helpful. Struggling at BRU DUS FRA HAM HAJ etc to guess how many miles to go makes it hard work.

[1999]

The original question / dilema was the sole use of the word Expect before actual vectoring commences , since it's not found anywhere in ICAO documents in such exact manner ( " Expect vectoring ..") ... from there on everything is pretty much clear and self explanatory :
"Vectoring for ILS App .. Continue present HDG/Fly HDG etc " , you get type of expected approach from ATIS beforehand - you get track miles from touchdown at least once during vectoring - it's just the use of the phrase " Expect Vectoring ..." that i was curious about if in such exact state is used anywhere else ..
Keeping both sides in the loop as much as possible with any additional information in that regard is definitely safest way to go - no doubt about that .

Thanx for your inputs guys/gals - keep on rockin


1999

[On the beach]

What's wrong with: "Continue present heading, vectors for the ILS RWY **, you have 45 track miles to touchdown". Worked for me for 30+ years.

On the beach

[Northerner]

Bit stuck in the UK here (sorry to the OP who wanted German stuff particularly), but I do use "expect vectors" occasionally. I use it when I'm going to give a straight in or baseleg, usually for Gatwick, which will result in a significant shortcut and I want to let the pilot know that I'm going to expect him on the ground in 60 miles as opposed to 100 odd!

There's nothing wrong with "continue present heading", but I might not actually want to put the aircraft on a heading initially, or I might not be allowed to if it's not in my airspace, and there may be other reasons. Personally I know from experience regading the Gatwick inbounds through TANET, that if I let the aircraft follow the routing and turn at TANET for DET, that usually makes a pretty good heading for the straight in intercept, so I very often say "expect vectors for a straight in approach runway 26L giving you xx miles to touchdown" and then I'll put the aircraft on a heading at the appropriate time.

Cheers,
Notherner

"Keep smiling - it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

[Quintilian]

I often use "proceed direct XX (Where XX is a point on 12nm final), expect vectoring for the ILS".

Then I know where the A/C is heading, and I don't need to compensate for wind/drift, and the pilot will also be aware of their trackmiles without me stating it.

[jozo]

I always use "expect vectoring for ILS approach" unless i give vector on first contact because I think it is useful to let the pilot know your intensions, and yes,I have been trained at DFS,they use it often

[JustaFew]

The use of 'Expect' is superfluous; either they will or they won't
receive vectors...

[Starts with P]

Perhaps the thought is saying "continue present heading..." is not a vector, but you can expect one a little later.

If the controller said "turn left heading XXX, expect vectors for an ILS approach". The "expect" might be a bit superfluous.

[bekolblockage]

I'm with JustaFew

Waste of breath and R/T time in my opinion.
The type of approach expectation ( e.g. ILS, VOR, Visual) is the importantant info on first contact.
You give a vector- guess what, they turn. You don't- they follow their clearance.
Don't try to complicate something that isn't.

[reportyourlevel]

Agree with JustaFew. I remember at college being told that when an inbound is told "vectoring for an ILS approach runway 26" it does not have to be vectored straight away.

[1999]

I remember something along that line you mentioned "reportyourlevel" too ... interestingly enough i did my training in the UK .
I couldn't agree more with the last few posters - since I prefer sticking to the published standards as much as possible - I'm not keen on inventing "new phrases" unless really necessary - but hey that just me .. i could be wrong of course

1999