Narrative:

During IFR practice; approach cleared us for the VOR a approach to ZZZ and to fly the DME arc. Upon turning inbound from the arc was told to proceed straight out on the final approach heading VFR. The final approach course brings you in on an angle between runway 19 and runway 9. There are circling only minimums as a result. While inbound from the final approach fix; tower said 'cleared for the approach to runway 19'. Also told to report the missed approach as there was no intention to land. Given this is an a approach (not to a runway) specifically mentioning runway 19 was interpreted as an instruction to circle to runway 19 if landing. Given we did not land and commenced the missed approach right at minimums; we flew to minumums and then straight out on the missed approach. We were then reprimanded by the tower for not 'listening up' and proceeding to runway 19. We never intended to land on 19 so we never proceeded to runway 19. Flying the approach by the book suggested we did nothing wrong. For a tower to suggest we were in the wrong for not flying an approach to a specific runway seems to be an incorrect procedure or ambiguous at best. The VOR a approach does not go to a specific runway and one only circles to land from that approach if a landing is the intent. It was clear we were doing a low approach only. I am still not clear what the tower expected nor at what point? I have been flying IFR for over 35 years and never received such a vague instruction on an IFR approach.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SR20 pilot reported while on a VOR-A non-precision approach; specifying intentions to execute the missed approach; being cleared by ATC to land on a specific runway.

Narrative: During IFR practice; Approach cleared us for the VOR A approach to ZZZ and to fly the DME arc. Upon turning inbound from the arc was told to proceed straight out on the final approach heading VFR. The final approach course brings you in on an angle between Runway 19 and Runway 9. There are circling only minimums as a result. While inbound from the final approach fix; Tower said 'cleared for the approach to Runway 19'. Also told to report the missed approach as there was no intention to land. Given this is an A approach (not to a runway) specifically mentioning Runway 19 was interpreted as an instruction to circle to Runway 19 if landing. Given we did not land and commenced the missed approach right at minimums; we flew to minumums and then straight out on the missed approach. We were then reprimanded by the Tower for not 'listening up' and proceeding to Runway 19. We never intended to land on 19 so we never proceeded to Runway 19. Flying the approach by the book suggested we did nothing wrong. For a Tower to suggest we were in the wrong for not flying an approach to a specific runway seems to be an incorrect procedure or ambiguous at best. The VOR A approach does not go to a specific runway and one only circles to land from that approach if a landing is the intent. It was clear we were doing a low approach only. I am still not clear what the tower expected nor at what point? I have been flying IFR for over 35 years and never received such a vague instruction on an IFR approach.

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.