“cleared to Airport X, squawk Y, etc”.bq.
This would get you as far as NW, in your case. Unless ATC specifically told otherwise somewhere enroute.
The term “expect vectors for ILS approach” doesn’t constitute any clearance nor ATC instruction at all. It merely allows you to anticipate the approach, just like the ATIS info would.
Yes, it would have been better to fly the STAR, iso OSGOS dct EHBK.
But I think the only correct thing to do in this case would have been to query the atco before OSGOS. I think you and him were on a different page. I also think he didn’t do a good job. “Clear,concise and unambiguous” I was always told…
I don’t think it was clear what you were supposed to do after OSGOS. Exepecting means nothing. they forgot about you and you had to ask them before the waypoint what was you next clearance. They would have just put you on a heading. In no way were they expecting you to fly the normal/procedural approach.
This would get you as far as NW, in your case
Yes – I agree. It’s not a clearance to land (well, not unless you are on the lost comms procedure 
)
It’s a clearance to fly to the procedural approach holding fix (NW) and enter a hold there, and go around the hold for ever.
Well, until you are down to minimum fuel and then you declare a mayday 
There are so many grey areas in this business!
In no way were they expecting you to fly the normal/procedural approach.
Sure, for an airport which “everybody” knows is 100% radar vectored and which has not used the published procedures since they laid down the tarmac. But if we are to talk about what a clearance really means, one cannot assume that.
It’s one thing in N Europe but you could fly to a huge airport in S Europe (say Hania LGSA in Greece) which is a front line Greek air force base with armed F16s airborne H24 (four of them lined up here) and which “obviously” has radar, and what do ATC there give you when you turn up? A procedural approach!
In no way were they expecting you to fly the normal/procedural approach.
Sure, for an airport which “everybody” knows is 100% radar vectored and which has not used the published procedures since they laid down the tarmac. But if we are to talk about what a clearance really means, one cannot assume that.
We are talking about Maastricht.
We are talking about Maastricht.
Makes no difference. Can’t assume.
Makes no difference. Can’t assume.
And that is why in a situation like the OP raised, you must ask.
One can make a point that one should continue with the filed plan in the absence of ATC instructions. There are however two problems with this:
1) SIDs and STARs are special. Actually, that flight plan is technically invalid, and it only went through because Eurocontrol is nice. EHBK has an arrival DCT limit of 0, i.e. it completely disallows DCT EHBK, with the exception of NW DCT EHBK and GUL DCT EHBK. However, the Eurocontrol checker tries to replace invalid DCT’s with suitable airways or procedures if available. So it likely replaced your RUMER DCT EHBK with RUMER RUMER2M EHBK. Problem is, they don’t tell you, you’d have to become an airline to get CHMI access…
2) if you really wanted to fly the ILS, then OSGOS DCT EHBK puts you at the wrong place…
So really the only good way to handle this situation, especially close to an airport, is ask ATC before venturing past the clearance limit…
A feeder route in the US is part of the approach procedure and depicted on the approach chart with an altitude, distance, and route to be flown from an enroute fix to an IAF. A STAR is not a feeder route and in the US requires a specific clearance from ATC to fly one. According to the OP, such a clearance to fly the STAR did not exist. The last clearance was a Direct to OSGOS with an expect radar vectors to final.
The clearance limit is either OSGOS or the airport. In the US, we are not permitted to fly beyond our clearance limit and sans a clearance, one is expected to enter a standard hold, on course, at the clearance limit.
The subsequent clearance does not provide a route to join the approach and should be clarified, especially considering vectors were said to be expected. In the US, a clearance would have other elements in it if a random route direct-to a fix was desired. An altitude would be required to maintain until established on an approach segment. One could not self vector to final. One could navigate to the locator which is an IAF and fly the full procedure including the hold, but straight in would not be an option because of the distances involved (they have to be 3 NM or more from the FAF and at no more than a 30 degree angle.
So it likely replaced your RUMER DCT EHBK with RUMER RUMER2M EHBK.
In that case what Beek app did makes sense. The ATCO thought the OP was assigned the RUMER2M STAR, rather than direct OSGOS. So even if (s)he initially intended to give radar vectors, (s)he changed his/her mind and let the OP fly (as (s)he thought) the STAR to its end, which would have positioned the aircraft for a straight-in ILS.
So there I was, inbound OSGOS, AP in NAV mode, expecting vectors…
In the ATC world of today, I think HDG mode is usually safer. By allowing your NAV mode to make an unexpected turn, right or wrong, you surprised ATC. By contrast, unless they have issued very specific instructions, you rarely surprise ATC as much by not making a turn!
