Prevent incorrect inbound requests made to Tower controller


Not everyone knows the standards around requesting inbound to the Tower controller.

E.g. After getting cleared for ILS approach by radar controller pilots request for simple inbound and vice-versa when they contact tower without radar being present


I suggest, when there is no radar controller available i.e. no approach clearance is provided and pilot directly contacts tower, the “Inbound on the ILS/GPS/Visual” buttons should be disabled in ATC menu.
Basically disable/enable the inbound options as per the conditions in User Guide

Good idea actually. So like how if “no pattern work allowed” is in the ATIS, “remaining in the pattern” is greyed out, if you haven’t been cleared for the ILS/visual, that option should also be greyed out.


Very great idea

Calling inbound on the ILS or GPS when communicating with tower, in the absence of approach, is not wrong and shouldn’t be treated as such.

As a pilot if I have filed an instrument approach I will communicate that to make my approach path more predictable. Tower controllers should use the inbound request in conjunction with the visible flight plan and operational needs to issue the most suitable pattern entry.

This request would not be implemented but I do appreciate the clear and concise topic. Nice job presenting the problem and solution!


See that’s what I originally thought, but the way everyone talks about it always makes it seem like it can’t be used. Don’t know if this could do with a tutorial because I feel like the guide has caused some confusion here? Like if I’m fully established on an ILS having flown the approach on my own, and then tower comes online, do I announce on the ILS? Because from what people seem to say, no, but I don’t know now.


Yes, request what you’re actually doing. For me anyways, I’m going to acknowledge that and work others in around you. It doesn’t mean you can’t be sent elsewhere if there is a true operational advantage (spacing isn’t right, etc) but I picture those flying an instrument approach like they’re on a set of rails without much flexibility.


Ah, okay, thank you!

Wow, thank you! I’ve taken lumps on more than one occasion for trying to assert this.
And I agree, kudos to @anant for the clarity in highlighting the nature of a recurring issue.

1 Like

Interesting, I thought this was the case but whenever I do so I always get told to check the user guide, who h is slightly annoying.


I’ll re-brief the team! 🙂