This relates
I did another flight to LFAT and this time had the mp3 recorder running.
ATIS was partly illegible. Often the case at LFAT.
Initially talking to Lille, this time I was #2 so got OKPEM again. When I asked if this is a hold (probably didn’t use quite the right phraseology for that) they said a hold won’t be needed. Then I got an illegible waypoint, then “route 030” which was presumably “heading 030” but was nonsensical. I left in one call to another aircraft which showed the correct use of “heading”… maybe there were two men on the radio with very similar voices?
Interestingly I got cleared for the ILS at 3000ft so descended to 2000ft on my own. The first “cleared ILS” I missed, although it is legible enough in the recording.
I edited the sound track to leave just calls relating to me (except the one call mentioned above). This means that the time axis is compressed e.g. long silences are missing.
Peter wrote:
they said a hold won’t be needed. Then I got an illegible waypoint
I think the controller is saying he can vector to you OKPEM, i.e., with delaying vectors, so that by the time you arrive at OKPEM you are ready for the approach, but then he indicates that he cannot formally vector you because you are OCAS.
I cannot make out some of that even listening to the mp3.
But why vector me to OKPEM which is of no use for the ILS unless I do a course reversal of some sort (as amply debated further back) and then fly a procedural ILS.
In normal “sensible” flying, a controller will either “wash his hands of you” by sending you to a hold or, to reduce your workload (while increasing his a bit), he can send you around the sky a bit with vectors, ending with a vector to a LOC intercept.
You can be vectored OCAS; e.g. Thames Radar will vector you to the ILS at Biggin, all in Class G.
I would compare using “route” instead of “heading” with “would of” instead of “would have” 
This whole thing just doesn’t hang together. Controller training? But then why use “heading” correctly a few seconds later?
Peter wrote:
I cannot make out some of that even listening to the mp3.
This is what I hear:
Lille Approach: You will be number 2 for the approach. Descend to altitude 3,000 feet QNH 993 and join OKPEM.
[…]
N113AC: request instructions for OKPEM; is it a holding fix?
Lille Approach: Holding will not be needed, maybe I can vector you to OKPEM for number 2?
N113AC: Please say again the last bit.
Lille Approach: uncontrolled airspace, follow route 030.
no readback recorded
Lille Approach: N3AC, correction, follow route 065.
N113AC: Heading 065, confirm?
Lille Approach: Yes, afirm.
Later you were cleared for the ILS 13 via TUKVI.
Guess we won’t know unless we ask the controller, but I assume he sent you in the direction of OKPEM (rather than TUKVI initially, as there is traffic ahead of you) to buy some time. After that, you were told to expect the ILS for 13, so presumably if communication was lost you would take up the published hold at OKPEM and then fly the approach via OKPEM. I assume he didn’t send you to the hold right away as he didn’t think it would be necessary.
Peter wrote:
You can be vectored OCAS; e.g. Thames Radar will vector you to the ILS at Biggin, all in Class G.
I think the reference to “OCAS” was just to remind you that accepting the heading was up to you.
I think the reference to “OCAS” was just to remind you that accepting the heading was up to you.
Given that TUKVI is (marginally) in UK Class G, why not ignore everything he says and just fly to TUKVI
I think this is nonsense phraseology.
the LFAT APP controllers will feel like they are under intense scrutiny.
Lille actually
I suspect almost nobody listened to the mp3 and the strange terminology
Peter wrote:
I suspect almost nobody listened to the mp3 and the strange terminology
I have listened to it, and I agree that whilst to me it is mostly obvious what the controller is trying to acheive, it is not very good phraseology nor is it clear. I agree that (again, going back to the previous thread) it is not clear what the controller’s intentions for you were, if you were to have made it to OKPEM, but maybe this time it would have been clearer had you actually got there. The ‘follow route 030(/065)’ is perhaps the bit that would have confused me the most. Obviously the normal instruction is ‘fly heading 030 degrees’, and if any single word of that was missing/wrong then you can fairly reliably know what they meant. But to have every part of it different than standard and omitting the ‘degrees’ (which again, is common when all else is correct) I would nearly wonder if there was a charted route 060 I should be following.
Peter wrote:
Interestingly I got cleared for the ILS at 3000ft so descended to 2000ft on my own. The first “cleared ILS” I missed, although it is legible enough in the recording.
Two things about this. They did infact give you descent to 2000’ the first time they cleared you to TUKVI, I guess it was just missed. Secondly, as I think I mentioned in the previous thread, even if they had cleared you for the ILS at 3000’, this is really very common in many parts of the world, and they expectation would be that you maintain the cleared altitude until on the procedure (ie. TUKVI and after) and then descent according to the procedure. This is quite common in places like Alicante and others, which have various step downs on the approach and the controllers will often clear you for the approach from further out. The scenario does cause some debate about whether you can actually descend before being on the procedure. This is the reason why for years in the UK they woudln’t clear you for an ILS, but would only clear you to intercept the localiser and then descend with the glide, and is also the reason why they will only clear you for the ILS now once they have given you descent to the platform altitude.
I thought “route 030” referred to something on the approach plate, or maybe the airway chart. Hence I didn’t read anything back because I was trying to work it out.
Just as you are saying
I find it amazing that one’s ELP can be so bad as to use “route” instead of “heading”. Surely anybody listening to ATC on a handheld radio for under an hour would know the correct name? The controller must have got a completely fake ELP4 signoff. Or maybe, like in the “racetrack” thread, “route” is a French→English translation of another French word not used in aviation (“hippodrome” in the other case, resulting in a nonsensical “racetrack”).
Yes I must have missed the earlier 2000ft. Or got it and forgot, because I got sent to OKPEM.
