Narrative:

The weather was overcast and raining at phx; so we were vectored onto the ILS for runway 7R. The first officer had the autopilot join the localizer and descend to 3000 feet. The autopilot was having a hard time tracking the localizer with a strong crosswind; and we were about one dot left of course. Just as the autopilot captured the glideslope; the approach controller pointed out traffic on the localizer for runway 8 and asked if we had it in sight. I replied that we were IMC. The controller instructed us to climb and maintain 4000 feet. No other instructions. Normally when a controller breaks you off the approach; he says something like 'approach clearance cancelled; track the localizer; climb and maintain 4000 feet'. This guy only said to climb to 4000 feet; and nothing else. Since we were unsure of what the controllers plan was; we didn't know if we should reconfigure the airplane for a go-around or if we could expect to resume the approach momentarily. The first officer disengaged the autopilot and slowly climbed to 4000 feet while still in an approach configuration. Spotting the airport through the rain; I realized that there was no way to resume the approach. At that point the controller added to our confusion by instructing us to contact tower. What? I told him that we were at 4000 feet and not in a position to land. He repeated his instruction to contact the tower; with a snarky attitude. By now the first officer and I were both thoroughly confused and had no idea what the controller had in mind. While I switched to tower; I noticed that the first officer had climbed to about 4300 feet or 4400 feet briefly; and then descended back to our assigned altitude. I checked in with tower stating that we were overhead the airport at 4000 feet. The tower finally gave us a heading; altitude; and stated that we would get turned back out for another approach. Fantastic; now we finally knew what the plan was. The remainder of the flight back around for another approach and landing was uneventful.the main cause of this event was the approach controller not clearly communicating his plan for exactly what he wanted us to do. As a crew; we need to know a bit more than 'climb to 4000'. I need to know what his plan is for us so we can react accordingly and configure the airplane properly. His instruction to contact tower with no explanation as to why added to our confusion. A contributing factor was the autopilot's poor performance in tracking the localizer in the crosswind. I suspect that being 1 dot north of the localizer is what caused the controller to be concerned about lack or separation with the traffic to runway 8.the easiest way to avoid a situation like this is for the controller to use standard phraseology when breaking an aircraft off an approach ('approach clearance cancelled; track the localizer; climb and maintain...'). If the crew has a question about what the plan is because of the controller's lack of communication skills; the controller should clarify the plan without getting an attitude about being questioned.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-700 Captain reported being issued incomplete; confusing go-around instructions from a TRACON Controller.

Narrative: The weather was overcast and raining at PHX; so we were vectored onto the ILS for Runway 7R. The First Officer had the autopilot join the localizer and descend to 3000 feet. The autopilot was having a hard time tracking the localizer with a strong crosswind; and we were about one dot left of course. Just as the autopilot captured the glideslope; the approach controller pointed out traffic on the localizer for Runway 8 and asked if we had it in sight. I replied that we were IMC. The controller instructed us to climb and maintain 4000 feet. No other instructions. Normally when a controller breaks you off the approach; he says something like 'approach clearance cancelled; track the localizer; climb and maintain 4000 feet'. This guy only said to climb to 4000 feet; and nothing else. Since we were unsure of what the controllers plan was; we didn't know if we should reconfigure the airplane for a go-around or if we could expect to resume the approach momentarily. The First Officer disengaged the autopilot and slowly climbed to 4000 feet while still in an approach configuration. Spotting the airport through the rain; I realized that there was no way to resume the approach. At that point the controller added to our confusion by instructing us to contact tower. WHAT? I told him that we were at 4000 feet and not in a position to land. He repeated his instruction to contact the tower; with a snarky attitude. By now the First Officer and I were both thoroughly confused and had no idea what the controller had in mind. While I switched to tower; I noticed that the First Officer had climbed to about 4300 feet or 4400 feet briefly; and then descended back to our assigned altitude. I checked in with tower stating that we were overhead the airport at 4000 feet. The tower finally gave us a heading; altitude; and stated that we would get turned back out for another approach. Fantastic; now we finally knew what the plan was. The remainder of the flight back around for another approach and landing was uneventful.The main cause of this event was the approach controller not clearly communicating his plan for exactly what he wanted us to do. As a crew; we need to know a bit more than 'climb to 4000'. I need to know what his plan is for us so we can react accordingly and configure the airplane properly. His instruction to contact tower with no explanation as to why added to our confusion. A contributing factor was the autopilot's poor performance in tracking the localizer in the crosswind. I suspect that being 1 dot north of the localizer is what caused the controller to be concerned about lack or separation with the traffic to Runway 8.The easiest way to avoid a situation like this is for the controller to use standard phraseology when breaking an aircraft off an approach ('approach clearance cancelled; track the localizer; climb and maintain...'). If the crew has a question about what the plan is because of the controller's lack of communication skills; the controller should clarify the plan without getting an attitude about being questioned.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.