Expect ...

[Duncan White]

On VATSIM I am being told to expect vectors, expect this approach or expect this runway.

 

While on the face of it this might appear helpful isn't it really just a indication of what the controller intentions are for your aircraft ? ie completely different to receiving a formal clearance or instruction.

 

Should I be reading back these expectations ?

 

See article below on "the unexpected results of the expect clearance technique".

 

https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl4_expect.htm

 

What is your advice / opinion ?

Edited November 22, 2018 at 05:56 AM by Guest

[Don Desfosse]

It should be helpful. Knowing what to expect can help you plan for it. In advance. Which, planning for something and being ready for it in advance should help you, ATC, and the overall safety and efficiency of the system. Just be aware of what's expect and what's been cleared and/or published, and you won't fall into the traps that those other folks fell into. I treat those reports like news -- they wouldn't be news if they weren't relatively rare. For every one mistake that's highlighted in an article like that, it's done correctly thousands of times. That said, we can and should all learn from others' mistakes so we don't repeat them.

[Markus Vitzethum]

Hi Duncan,

 

as long as it applies to runways or specific approaches only ... just think of it that, as a pilot, it helps you to set up your aircraft for landing properly, plan your descent and do your approach briefing. All these things are items that yon don't want to do when entering the terminal area, or being handled over to the approach controller, e.g. don't plan to fiddle with your FMC when below 10.000' when things get busy.

 

In any case, early runway [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments on approach are always helpful to me. The topics addressed in the ASRS reports rather focus on items concerning your flight path (altitude, headings, entering runways) - this is indeed something that can be become safety critical in case of misunderstandings.

 

Markus

[Eoin Motherway 1315348]

expect

verb

regard (something) as likely to happen.

 

I always take "Expect..." with a grain of salt. Doesn't mean things won't change last minute.

[Markus Vitzethum]

> Doesn't mean things won't change last minute.

 

Exactly. I witnessed this once while on the jumpseat of a Saab 2000 airline flight into EDDN. We were already vectored onto the downwind (for the ILS28, night time, only few aircraft in the vicinity) approach when ATC came back to the pilots with "Sorry, change of plans, ILS10 is now active, due to wind change").

 

So, left turn to heading (roughly) 320° towards the FAF ILS10, and rebrief for the ILS10 approach while at 5000'. Happens once in a while.

 

Markus

[Trevor Hannant]

On VATSIM I am being told to expect vectors, expect this approach or expect this runway.

 

While on the face of it this might appear helpful isn't it really just a indication of what the controller intentions are for your aircraft ? ie completely different to receiving a formal clearance or instruction.

 

Should I be reading back these expectations ?

 

If I receive the "expect vectors for an ILS approach runway xx", the first thing I do is ensure my AP Heading bug is set to the heading I'm currently on and that, if manual input is required, the ILS frequency is set correctly. That way, I'm not scrambling last minute to turn a dial I've forgotten about potentially hours earlier.

 

The "expect" is there to help you get setup and ready early - you won't want to get to the start of the STAR, hear a command to turn and not be prepared. Bear in mind that most arrivals won't follow a STAR and/or Transition in full when controllers are active.

[Simon Kelsey]

And to answer the question about reading back -- no, as it is not an instruction/clearance you there is no requirement to read back in full, an acknowledgement (i.e. "Roger") is sufficient.

[Kirk Christie]

In terms of Australia.

 

Expect items do not need to be read back.

 

However all runway [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments need to be read back.

 

If you ever hear a controller say EXPECT VECTORS ILS APPROACH 34L, that is wrong, it is RUNWAY 34L, EXPECT VECTORS FOR THE ILS APPROACH

 

All the pilot has to read back is RUNWAY 34L

 

For what its worth, I have omitted EXPECT XXXX from my read backs and have been told I am required to read that back in some countries, like the USA.

 

Further more, there are only a few clearances

 

Airways Clearance

Cleared to enter/leave controlled airspace

Cleared to take off/land

 

Everything else is an instruction, and should not have the world Cleared used in them, like Cleared push, Cleared to taxi.

[Martin Loxbo]

On VATSIM I am being told to expect vectors, expect this approach or expect this runway.

 

While on the face of it this might appear helpful isn't it really just a indication of what the controller intentions are for your aircraft ?

It's funny you put it this way because in Sweden there is a local phraseology; the word "intention" is used instead of "expect", for example "intention vectors for ILS approach" or "intention visual approach". It means just the same as "expect" though, it's just a different way of saying what is the controller's intention.

 

And as has been pointed out already, there is no specific requirement to read back this information.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hmmm, Martin, I flew to Bromma this year or last year and was told to "expect ILS approach runway 30" which I replied to with "roger". The lady then repeated the instruction and I repeated my readback: "roger". She then insisted that I read back the information... And now?

[Martin Loxbo]

Well, as we all know (right? ) runway in use and type of approach are mandatory readback items. What I meant was there is no specific requirement to read back whatever the controller tells you to expect, such as "expect vectors via right downwind".

 

Slight thread drift, but did you get to enjoy the comfy chairs and free ice cream in the Grafair bizjet terminal?

[Andreas Fuchs]

I know, I know, but we had already reported "information BLABLA copied", which implies we were aware of the runway and type of approach in use. I hate to duplicate information.

 

The parrot, the piano and the ice-cream are the main reasons why we fly to Bromma!!! Unfortunately the blond girl from reception was stolen by a fellow pilot and taken to Malmö, a couple of years ago.

[Martin Loxbo]

Haha so the parrot is still there!

 

Actually I've only visited the terminal once, 11 years ago now. A friend who's a fellow VATSIMmer and pilot was doing some internship there and I remember we flew out in a PA-28. This was back in the day when landing at ESSB didn't cost a fortune. Times are different now...

[Andreas Fuchs]

Not much has changed since then, still one of the top 3 FBOs in all of Europe.

[Kirk Christie]

Reading back Approach type is not really relevant, because you can be cleared for a Visual and use the ILS if you desire.

[George Leonard 1000605]

Hi Duncan, you have a point, though "expect" is officially ICAO phraseology for, exactly what the word means, so plan for it.

 

But it can also be confusing, as you would have experienced with me first hand, so I know, and I say this with the utmost respect to others as in the real world it is the same, that in future ATC need to explicitly cancel the STAR/SID, though you have filed it or setup the FMC to do so.

 

As not all pilots are able to fly SID`s/STARS effectively, mainly due to different simulators, Euroscope will echo conflict alarms, in terms of its set departure and arrival database.

 

So here is my take...overhead the STAR, ATC will say "November 58 Charlie Papa, Standard Arrival is cancelled, maintain current heading, descend xxxx ft"

 

This should then explicitly be accepted by the pilot that he will now not "expect" a vectored ILS, but knows he will be vectored to the ILS.

[Martin Loxbo]

Reading back Approach type is not really relevant, because you can be cleared for a Visual and use the ILS if you desire.

 

You may not think it's relevant, but it's still a requirement. In your example you would still be legally flying the visual approach. If you choose to use the ILS as a backup for situational awareness (which is a good idea), from an ATC perspective you're still flying the visual. If you're not happy with the visual, simply request the ILS.

[Steven Perry]

No one seems to have mentioned the official reason "expect..." is issued in the FAA world. Even the NASA article linked by Duncan in the original only makes a tangential reference to it.

 

A controller gives EXPECT instructions for when communications are lost (perhaps... a disgruntled employee starts a fire in the ATC facility.)

 

Cleared KABC to KXYZ via DEF, maintain 5000, expect FL350 10 minutes after departure, sq 1234.

When you depart, lose your radios at wheels up, and immediately fly into IMC... you can now continue all the way to KXYZ at 5000 for 10 minutes, then climb FL350. If ATC had omitted the "expect FL350" then you would be stuck at 5,000, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming there's no higher minimum altitude (e.g. airway MEA).

 

Similarly, when entering the terminal environment, controllers might issue a vector with the stated reason for the vector being an approach, or issue "expect ILS Rwy 36". Now if you lose communication, you know what to do and ATC will have a reasonable idea of what to expect from the pilot.

 

Lost comms happens very rarely, so the practical everyday reason is to let the pilots plan ahead a little. But it's that one time when you do lose communication that makes it all worth it.

 

So it's not pointless. And I do habitually read it back to give the controller a chance to catch an error and also to cover my butt.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Cleared KABC to KXYZ via DEF, maintain 5000, expect FL350 10 minutes after departure, sq 1234.

When you depart, lose your radios at wheels up, and immediately fly into IMC... you can now continue all the way to KXYZ at 5000 for 10 minutes, then climb FL350. If ATC had omitted the "expect FL350" then you would be stuck at 5,000, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming there's no higher minimum altitude (e.g. airway MEA).

Again, this is the US. Under "normal rules" you just climb to your cruise altitude according to ICAO Lost Comms Procedures: http://www.code7700.com/lost_communications.htm

[Joshua Jenkins]

Again, this is the US. Under "normal rules" you just climb to your cruise altitude according to ICAO Lost Comms Procedures: http://www.code7700.com/lost_communications.htm

To add on to this, in Canada (or at least for the CZVR FIR), we don't even bother with giving the pilots a temporary altitude in their initial clearance (in 90% of cases) because we expect them to follow the procedure on the SID charts which outline specific procedures for what to do in case of a radio failure.

 

Josh