Inbound question

I was inbound into EGLL and I told the ATC I was inbound but he told me to read the user guid why?

We need more information to find out why, was there something he corrected you on? could you send an image of the conversation log between you and ATC

1 Like

This is the conversation

Makes a bit more sense. From what I’m seeing, it’s a bit of a misunderstanding of what to state when calling inbound for landing.

A general rule of thumb I follow is to call inbound normally if approach control is not present and you were not handed off when cleared for ILS approach, as well as calling inbound for ILS if you were done so by an approach controller.


Ok thank you.

Unfortunately, I think this is incorrect. Approach being present doesn’t affect how you can call inbound for landing to Tower. Aircraft are authorized and encouraged to call inbound with whichever approach they have filed.

In your situation @TheAviation_YT, based on the screenshot you have provided, I am unable to derive certain information that would assist me in finding out why you experienced that interaction of messages with the controller. Expert Server controllers are required to uphold and exceed certain proficiency requirements and are constantly being supervised by our Moderators, Supervisors, and Staff.

If you do feel that your interaction with the controller was unjust, I would encourage reaching out to the controller to discuss your situation and to find out why the specific things that happened took place.

Please let me know if you have any further questions, and I will be happy to help.


Will stand corrected, thanks.

1 Like

I agree with Daniel here, a check user guide was not necessary even though the OP did not call in properly.

1 Like

I’ve been told by quite a few others that, like Tsumia said, you’re to only call imbound on the ILS, Visual, or GPS when cleared by a controller.

It also states it in the user guide :)


Yes, but a check user guide should be used sparingly, and this is not a scenario where we should be sending out CUGs.


I mean, I can see why a CUG was sent, as the controller simply pointed the pilot to the user guide to review that the way they called inbound for landing was incorrect. A simple mistake.


My apologies about the miscommunication @Tsumia, you were initially correct.


If that were the case, tons and tons of CUGs would be sent, essentially causing the message to lose its purpose. We want to reserve the command for more serious issues. Not calling in properly does not affect operations - just give a normal pattern entry and continue as normal.

1 Like

I agree with Matt here, using an incorrect inbound command wouldn’t be a good enough cause to make use of the CUG command, and it is much better to be reserved for greater infractions (in regards to severity).

1 Like

It all depends on the situation, if the airport is not busy, then helping a pilot improve shouldn’t be a problem at all. Of course in a busier enviorment, it wouldn’t be such a big deal to the controller.

Using the CUG command wouldn’t necessarily be viewed in every situation as helping the pilot improve. This is because it usually makes the pilot feel bad and discouraged, etc. I feel that it is far more efficient to privately PM the pilot on the IFC and let them know of the correct method to use next time. This way, it can create a certain level of encouragement and inspiration to do better the next time, rather than calling them out publicly on the server and making them feel bad.


Correct me if I’m wrong. “inbound on the ils” is a perfectly valid positioning call out to tower. Which tower is then free to remove you from for a VFR pattern.

Just because the user guide says use “on the ils” after being cleared by a radar controller, does not mean it’s wrong to call that in as a positioning explanation to tower when a radar controller is not in operation.

Inbound on the ILS does not claim one has been given a clearance. It just states where you are.

If true, then check UG callout would be incorrect.

It does exactly this, and is why the user guide specifies as such.

If there’s no approach controller, you can’t receive IFR services, and therefore can’t be cleared inbound on an instrument approach procedure. I get what you mean by saying it lets tower know where you are, but this is not what the command is intended to be used for.

Tower will be aware if approach services are being provided. Otherwise, it is expected that all aircraft are making VFR requests and reports.

The debate around CUG is not whether the pilot did or did not do something that followed the user guide (in this case, they did not), rather it’s present because if CUG was sent for every single time a pilot did one small thing wrong, you’d see more CUGs than actual commands. ATC are supposed to save it for more major mistakes so the impact of the message isn’t diluted by overuse.


So it’s a gameplay limitation on what’s actually allowed in real life?:


Today, actually, I was out practicing instrument approaches in prep for my upcoming checkride. One of these was an ILS approach to my towered field. Approach ATC services are available as I fly in and around a bravo, but for this approach, my instructor and I decided not to talk to approach.

Same as Infinite Flight, you don’t get a clearance from ATC. Rather, you call tower and ask them if you can do a practice approach on your own navigation, remaining VFR. Your instructor will act as a simulated approach service and give you vectors/clearances.

So, in summary, you’re still not calling inbound on (insert approach) to tower in real life if you haven’t used approach services. You’re doing something a little different that’s mostly reserved for pilots pursuing their instrument rating.