Extending the Approach Gate

[Ventucky Red]

Or should I say, asking for an extension before "vectors to final"... sort of an extended downwind. I ask as while reviewing my practice session last weekend I got a little behind the curve and could of have used a minute or two to get caught up for the approach.. (learning the 430W).

If this is an acceptable practice; if so what is the proper phrasing for the request?

Thanks

 

[jordane93]

"Cessna 12345 request delay vectors..not ready for the approach"

 

[MAKG1]

Yes, it's entirely acceptable. Delay vectors are the usual way, though you could ask to hold at some fix (not in the approach!).

I'd suggest practicing the approach with the 400-series sim from Garmin, rather than in an airplane, though.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Yes, it's entirely acceptable. Delay vectors are the usual way, though you could ask to hold at some fix (not in the approach!).

I'd suggest practicing the approach with the 400-series sim from Garmin, rather than in an airplane, though.

Thanks yes, I have the sim on my laptop along with this and my local procedures.. Working with an instructor in the plane...

http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Aviation/GNS430-Exercises.html#Initialize

And

https://www.aopa.org/asf/online_courses/gps/

 

[Art VanDelay]

It's completely acceptable - even on your checkride. The examiner would be favorable impressed if you took the time to get it right instead of rushing and messing it up.

 

[luvflyin]

Or should I say, asking for an extension before "vectors to final"... sort of an extended downwind. I ask as while reviewing my practice session last weekend I got a little behind the curve and could of have used a minute or two to get caught up for the approach.. (learning the 430W).

If this is an acceptable practice; if so what is the proper phrasing for the request?

Thanks

Plain language. Tell em what you need. Extra minute. Extra x miles. Don't slam dunk me.

 

[Shawn]

It's completely acceptable - even on your checkride.

I did just that...told the DPE we were holding a few laps while I briefed and set up the next approach and he was more than happy with the decision. Remember who is PIC.

While en route..."delay vectors" is indeed what you wanna ask for. No explanation needed unless they ask, ATC will know you need to put the brakes on for a minute before proceeding.

You could ask for a hold...extension...whatever, but that will usually result in a query to state intentions. "Request delay vectors" is a clear way to communicate you simply need a bit more time to get ahead of the airplane before starting the approach without a lot of radio chatter back and forth on frequency having to explain your request and intentions.

 

[Dave S.]

"request extended downwind"
"request vector to a 10 mile final"
"request to join final outside of ALPHA"

lots of ways.

"delay vectors" is not so usual and not so descriptive. Delay for what? Delay before doing what? For how long? You may want it for a delay or to smoke a cigarette, or to get your maps together, or set up your equipment. But what does that mean to me? What EXACTLY do you want and what do you want me to do. That's why I recommend the above rather than "delay vectors".

Remember there are probably other aircraft involved in the sequence scenario and I need more precision in the request to make a decision on how your request fits into the big picture.

tex

 

[Velocity173]

Yeah, I'd be more specific than "delay vectors" as well. Tell them specifically where you want to intercept on final. Don't use time either. Heard that with JAX approach over the weekend. "Approach can you give Cessna 345 approximately 60 sec delay prior to intercept to give us time to set up for the approach." Confused approach as to what they wanted. How about "Approach, Cessna 345 request a dogleg to intercept at least x miles outside of the FAF." That's something the controller can work with.

 

[jordane93]

Delay vectors is the generic term. Of course we'd be a lot more specific when we request it.

 

[Shawn]

"Approach can you give Cessna 345 approximately 60 sec delay prior to intercept to give us time to set up for the approach." Confused approach as to what they wanted. How about "Approach, Cessna 345 request a dogleg to intercept at least x miles outside of the FAF." That's something the controller can work with.

Sorry, but you have a GA pilot asking for "Delay Vectors" which is usaully speak for they are getting a bit overwhelmed needing more time to get everything established before proceeding and you expect them to be able to process that time/distance/fix request as well?

We are not necessarily talking professional daily flying Jet Jockeys here...

 

[Velocity173]

Sorry, but you have a GA pilot asking for "Delay Vectors" which is usaully speak for they are getting a bit overwhelmed needing more time to get everything established before proceeding and you expect them to be able to process that time/distance/fix request as well?

We are not necessarily talking professional daily flying Jet Jockeys here...

Has nothing to do with being an experienced pilot. I'd expect every pilot to be able to clearly communicate what they want. Like Dave S said, "delay vectors" means little to the controller. So you want me to vector you around in circles?

The controller's mindset is vectoring you to intercept at the minimum distance allowed on final. Generally, that's 3 miles outside of the FAF. If you want something further out, just request it.

 

[Dave S.]

Of course, controllers will work with any situation as the need arises especially if someone needs help. That goes without saying. AND, we will decipher anything we need to to help anyone we need to.

But that's not the point of the question, is it. The point is not whether a request for "delay vectors" can not be INTERPRETED by the controller into some meaningful concept. It is always better for a pilot to speak clearly and express his request clearly and with as close to "standard" words and phrases as possible rather than relying on the controller to try to understand what you are asking for. In fact, I would ask exactly what you want anyway...so the so called "plain English" request for "delay vectors" with nothing else will likely lead to more conversation, not a reduction of conversation. The point is what is the better way, since we are trying to improve.

My experienced opinion is exactly what I posted earlier and for the reasons given. And every GA pilot should rise to the level of professionalism required for the environment they intend to play in. There is no acceptable level mediocrity in this business so the OP asks a very good question about recommended methods, because clarity is always best.

I may have a 737 on a ten mile final, a c421 behind him, a simultaneous arrive to the crossing runway and two spots to put you in, one of which is rapidly disappearing. I need something more than "delay vector". I need to be let in on the plan. And if I don't get it I will have to ask...and here we are playing 20 questions again.

tex

 

[jordane93]

Of course, controllers will work with any situation as the need arises especially if someone needs help. That goes without saying. AND, we will decipher anything we need to to help anyone we need to.

But that's not the point of the question, is it. The point is not whether a request for "delay vectors" can not be INTERPRETED by the controller into some meaningful concept. It is always better for a pilot to speak clearly and express his request clearly and with as close to "standard" words and phrases as possible rather than relying on the controller to try to understand what you are asking for. In fact, I would ask exactly what you want anyway...so the so called "plain English" request for "delay vectors" with nothing else will likely lead to more conversation, not a reduction of conversation. The point is what is the better way, since we are trying to improve.

My experienced opinion is exactly what I posted earlier and for the reasons given. And every GA pilot should rise to the level of professionalism required for the environment they intend to play in. There is no acceptable level mediocrity in this business so the OP asks a very good question about recommended methods, because clarity is always best.

I may have a 737 on a ten mile final, a c421 behind him, a simultaneous arrive to the crossing runway and two spots to put you in, one of which is rapidly disappearing. I need something more than "delay vector". I need to be let in on the plan.

tex

Actually happened a few months ago going from BOS-JFK. Super short flight and we were heavy. For some reason, our burn fuel was a lot less than what the paperwork said so we said we needed vectors to burn some gas. We didn't really say more. We just said we need delay vectors for about 20 minutes so we're not overweight.

 

[Shawn]

The point is not whether a request for "delay vectors" can not be INTERPRETED by the controller into some meaningful concept. It is always better for a pilot to speak clearly and express his request clearly and with as close to "standard" words and phrases as possible rather than relying on the controller to try to understand what you are asking for.

In the above example...the request was the pilot needs at least 60 seconds more time before intercepting the approach....how is that not clear english? My point being if he request delay vectors and 60 seconds of time just to get set for the approcah you also expect him to calculate an exact usually off airway IFR route and fixes that will give him that time on top of everything else?

Response I have always just gotten to a making a request like that is "Cessna XYZ, fly heading of XXX and let me know when you are ready to proceeded inbound"

 

[Brad Z]

Podunk Approach, N123 requesting delay vectors to set
Up for the approach.

N123, Podunk approach roger, turn left heading 230, advise when you're ready to [turn inbound][start the approach][proceed direct to XYZ], etc.

 

[Velocity173]

Never said 60 secs isn't clear english. Determining 60 secs when the pilot's speed varies, is nothing more than a swag. If a swag works for that pilot, great but I prefer what the controller uses and that's distance. The scope has distance hash marks, not time hash marks. Distance is a more precise request and allows them to better sequence the aircraft vs time.

Still, the original question was about intercepting further out on final. "Delay vectors" is ambiguous and doesn't properly convey to the controller a pilot's request.

 

[Shawn]

Still, the original question was about intercepting further out on final. "Delay vectors" is ambiguous and doesn't properly convey to the controller a pilot's request.

For the pilot that is overwhelmed...not yet set up for the approach...getting behind the airplane...and rapidly closing in on the approach...what would you suggest the call be?

I can tell you from experience as a student or low time IFR pilot in that scenario "Approach, Cessna 345 request a dogleg to intercept at least x miles outside of the FAF" would have been a completely unreasonable expectation.

That is the context of the OP's question.

 

[Dave S.]

For the pilot that is overwhelmed...not yet set up for the approach...getting behind the airplane...and rapidly closing in on the approach...what would you suggest the call be?

I can tell you from experience as a student or low time IFR pilot in that scenario "Approach, Cessna 345 request a dogleg to intercept at least x miles outside of the FAF" would have been a completely unreasonable expectation.

That is the context of the OP's question.

How did you phrase it...exactly!

Did you ask for delay vector..."to burn off some fuel" which is very to the point and descriptive.

Tex

 

[Shawn]

How did you phrase it...exactly!

Well, now I am aksing the controllers for a pilot in the overwhelmed scenario that I described what to call out for that request?...cuz my phraseology would be something along the lines of "request delay vectors, need a bit more time to get set up for the approach"...which @Velocity173 said is not clear enough on the real world example he cited.

 

[MAKG1]

Well, now I am aksing the controllers for a pilot in the overwhelmed scenario that I described what to call out for that request?...cuz my phraseology would be something along the lines of "request delay vectors, need a bit more time to get set up for the approach"...which @Velocity173 said is not clear enough on the real world example he cited.

I'd expect a response to be, "OK, report when you're ready to proceed."

Rather than delaying for 2 minutes or somesuch.

I've had a couple of blinding fast approaches, but I haven't (yet) needed to say the magic words. I've come close a couple of times. Flying IFR from a missed approach at KLVK to KOAK using vectors to the 28R ILS is DAMN short, and the workload gets very high in a G1000. But there are "effective" delay vectors there, since NorCal won't clear you for the approach until you report you have ATIS.

 

[Velocity173]

For the pilot that is overwhelmed...not yet set up for the approach...getting behind the airplane...and rapidly closing in on the approach...what would you suggest the call be?

I can tell you from experience as a student or low time IFR pilot in that scenario "Approach, Cessna 345 request a dogleg to intercept at least x miles outside of the FAF" would have been a completely unreasonable expectation.

That is the context of the OP's question.

The same three requests Dave suggested will work fine. They all have to do with intercepting final. Extend downwind isn't very clear and it might result in a longer distance than what the pilot anticipated but it still conveys to the controller that they want to intercept further out than normal. The controller will most likely come back with "approved, let me know when you want to turn base."

 

[Dave S.]

Well if I'm vectoring the guy I won't say approved. I'll just issue the instruction. I would only say approved (maybe) for a VFR in the pattern.

tex