Narrative:

On arrival and approach into denver we were originally cleared for a profile over beson. As we arrived near the airport we were cleared to 10,000' on a heading of 350 degree without a speed reduction, therefore, still at 250 KTS. Approximately 6 mi west of approach end of 08R and 1 mi south of extended centerline, approach controller asked if we had the medium large transport on final and the airport in sight. We informed him we did. In spite of our close proximity to that aircraft (1-1 1/2 mi) and the airport, and in spite of the fact we were at 10,000' 250 KTS and on a heading of 350 degree, he cleared us for a visual to runway 8R. We told him he set us up poorly for the approach. He then gave us a left turn and after a request 9000'. I believed the heading was 070 degree and said to the copilot 'a 270 degree left turn'./ this seemed logical as it would allow us to slow up, get lower, and in an approach confign as well as roll out more or less on final. As we approached 170 degree the copilot said he believed the heading assigned was 170 degree. This seemed illogical as it would turn us into the arrival aircraft and at their altitude. I asked him to verify. It took 3 or 4 calls before the controller finally answered with 'air carrier X I was talking to another aircraft'. We never heard another aircraft or the controller on our frequency until his reply. Our heading had gone to 110 degree (approximately) when he said he gave us 170 degree heading. He followed this immediately with a cleared for a visual. As it turned out (as discovered after phone call to approach and conversation with a supervisor) there was no conflicting traffic, and since we were slowed up and configured for approach, we were able to make an uneventful approach from this pont on, though it was steeper than normal.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLEW WRONG HEADING WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR A VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: ON ARRIVAL AND APCH INTO DENVER WE WERE ORIGINALLY CLRED FOR A PROFILE OVER BESON. AS WE ARRIVED NEAR THE ARPT WE WERE CLRED TO 10,000' ON A HDG OF 350 DEG WITHOUT A SPEED REDUCTION, THEREFORE, STILL AT 250 KTS. APPROX 6 MI W OF APCH END OF 08R AND 1 MI S OF EXTENDED CENTERLINE, APCH CTLR ASKED IF WE HAD THE MLG ON FINAL AND THE ARPT IN SIGHT. WE INFORMED HIM WE DID. IN SPITE OF OUR CLOSE PROX TO THAT ACFT (1-1 1/2 MI) AND THE ARPT, AND IN SPITE OF THE FACT WE WERE AT 10,000' 250 KTS AND ON A HDG OF 350 DEG, HE CLRED US FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 8R. WE TOLD HIM HE SET US UP POORLY FOR THE APCH. HE THEN GAVE US A LEFT TURN AND AFTER A REQUEST 9000'. I BELIEVED THE HDG WAS 070 DEG AND SAID TO THE COPLT 'A 270 DEG LEFT TURN'./ THIS SEEMED LOGICAL AS IT WOULD ALLOW US TO SLOW UP, GET LOWER, AND IN AN APCH CONFIGN AS WELL AS ROLL OUT MORE OR LESS ON FINAL. AS WE APCHED 170 DEG THE COPLT SAID HE BELIEVED THE HDG ASSIGNED WAS 170 DEG. THIS SEEMED ILLOGICAL AS IT WOULD TURN US INTO THE ARRIVAL ACFT AND AT THEIR ALT. I ASKED HIM TO VERIFY. IT TOOK 3 OR 4 CALLS BEFORE THE CTLR FINALLY ANSWERED WITH 'ACR X I WAS TALKING TO ANOTHER ACFT'. WE NEVER HEARD ANOTHER ACFT OR THE CTLR ON OUR FREQ UNTIL HIS REPLY. OUR HDG HAD GONE TO 110 DEG (APPROX) WHEN HE SAID HE GAVE US 170 DEG HDG. HE FOLLOWED THIS IMMEDIATELY WITH A CLRED FOR A VISUAL. AS IT TURNED OUT (AS DISCOVERED AFTER PHONE CALL TO APCH AND CONVERSATION WITH A SUPVR) THERE WAS NO CONFLICTING TFC, AND SINCE WE WERE SLOWED UP AND CONFIGURED FOR APCH, WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE AN UNEVENTFUL APCH FROM THIS PONT ON, THOUGH IT WAS STEEPER THAN NORMAL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.