Expect vectors without getting any vector

IMHO “cleared for ILS approach XX” means you can fly the procedural (in rest of Europe called “standard”) approach as published.

It means you can fly the approach any way you want, including straight-in. Of course, when there is no published route from an IAF to the localiser for a straight-in, it may not be smart (or even legal) to self-position.

Btw: I have never before heard the term “standard” to mean a full procedure approach…

It means you can fly the approach any way you want, including straight-in

I don’t agree, because “any way you want” would include going for a scenic flight all over the approach plate, taking pics of (in Paris) the Eiffel Tower, etc

This is why the British ATC didn’t use (for years – not sure when it started) the phrase “cleared for the ILS”, partly because of the implicit descent clearance, and partly because of the possible ambiguity regarding the lateral routing. And they gave you specific lateral instructions (or vectors, at all big airports) plus specific descent clearances. You got “heading xxx, report localiser established” etc etc. and then you got “descend with the glideslope” so lots of radio talk for each ILS.

And, IME, in Europe, you do tend to get descent clearances such that by the time you hear “cleared for the ILS” you are already at the platform altitude. In fact my biggest problem has been not getting the “cleared for the ILS” until too damned late; say 5mm before the LOC!

I think this is a bit of a 50:50. Firstly you shouldn’t have got as far as the fix without receiving an onward clearance and it is clear that ATC forgot (momentarily?) about you. You clearly didn’t have an arrival set-up in your A/P and consequently you allowed the aircraft to fly you in a direction contrary to that you wanted which, regardless of ATC non-instruction, wasn’t a great idea. You should have been expecting either a clearance to intercept or something different; that ‘something different’ wasn’t going to be DCT to the airfield which you allowed the aircraft to commence.

Sorry for being blunt, but this scenario is a classic whereby no one person takes control whilst the A/P merrily flies you into oblivion. Just because ATC sound warm and fluffy (spoken as someone who was a controller for 23 years) never forget that you are in command and the aircraft should only be going where you want it to go.

In the US, this would be a botched clearance. Without vectors or a clearance direct to the IAF, there would be no legal way of complying with the clearance. Assuming the last clearance limit was OSGOS, there isn’t a charted feeder route to the IAF, although it can be easily navigated to via a direct-to. One could not assume a heading if one is not assigned a vector. My response would be “Unable, need a vector to final”. If OSGOS was the clearance limit, in lieu of an acceptable clearance, I would enter a hold. If the clearance limit was the airport, I would let the autopilot aircraft fly to the airport.

I agree that the clearance was ambiguous and late, but prior to reaching OSGOS, I would speak up and negotiate an appropriate clearance. Such a clearance would likely result in a phone call to facility after landing and a discussion with the supervisor.

there isn’t a charted feeder route to the IAF

But there is, it’s called OSGOS1M, and it would have been roughly consistent with continuing the previous heading until localizer intercept…

I think ATC wasn’t great but you are technically wrong. If you weren’t given an arrival but were at some point given a routing towards OSGOS, then without an arrival OSGOS is surely the clearance limit which you can not proceed beyond. Obviously you can not stop over OSGOS and wait which is why it is the pilot’s responsibility to ensure they get further clearance.

I’m not familiar with this airport etc but to bring it back to a context which I (and some other people on here) would be familiar with – going to Biggin Hill and being vectored through London, then given direct LAM, I know that 9/10 times the next instruction will be to leave on heading 180 (or similar), but having not been given an arrival or further instructions, if I didn’t here anything else say 5nm before LAM I would be asking the controller what the plan was, because certainly I would not want to continue present heading in that case and steaming into LCY arrivals, but at the same time I haven’t got clearance to do anything else either.

But there is, it’s called OSGOS1M, and it would have been roughly consistent with continuing the previous heading until localizer intercept

However, would the pilot be entitled to make that assumption?

One cannot just fly to OSGOS and – due to a lack of ATC instructions – enter a hold there unless

• a hold is published there, and
• one is flying (cleared by ATC, not just by a coincidence) on a route (e.g. a STAR) on which the hold is published

For example. for EHBK this STAR shows OSGOS

but it doesn’t show a hold there. On a quick and dirty look through that airport’s 35 pages I can’t see a hold published at OSGOS on any of them, so IMHO it would be quite wrong to reach OSGOS and just start going round and round a DIY enroute hold there. What direction hold, too?

IMHO, the only case you can just enter a hold is with one like this

Obviously the pilot should be ahead of things and give ATC a prod if his enroute clearance is heading for a discontinuity, but that sort of thing (a discontinuity) happens a lot, so this is a good discussion to have.

A much more common example of a discontinuity is where you are taken away from your filed route by an ATC vector (say to separate you from some jet traffic) and then handed over to the next unit which doesn’t know you are on a heading. Or when you are on a heading to avoid weather. Radar controllers tend to be relaxed about stuff because all they time they can see you and you are going roughly the right way they don’t really care, but if the lost-comms scenario happens then you are in limbo. Enroute it usually doesn’t matter because you just keep flying in the right general direction and hope to raise the next unit, but if you are in the terminal area and about to land, you don’t have much time to sort it out.

but were at some point given a routing towards OSGOS, then without an arrival OSGOS is surely the clearance limit which you can not proceed beyond

The funny thing is that if you set 7600 you could just fly on and land

I don’t believe ATC can (or would want to) summarily chuck away your IFR clearance in that way. On a Eurocontrol IFR flight, you do have an implicit clearance all the way to the destination airport – especially when you consider that the departure clearance (assuming CAS-to-CAS flight etc i.e. not Shoreham to Lydd ) contained the words “cleared to Airport X, squawk Y, etc”.

then handed over to the next unit which doesn’t know you are on a heading

That shouldn’t happen, you’re supposed to tell the next unit you’re on a heading

And you shouldn’t.
If you had been cleared to destination at some point then going straight for the airport may have been compliant but not a very good idea. If you had not been cleared, then this was a clearance bust. In both cases the right thing would have been to query ATC – not always easy in practice, but an approach is not the right time to show good manners.