GA small aircraft pilot gave present heading when ATC asked for on course heading.

Attributes
ACN	167809
Time
Date	199101
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : msp
State Reference	MN
Altitude	msl bound lower : 9000 msl bound upper : 9000
Environment
Flight Conditions	Marginal
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : msp
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude cruise other
Route In Use	enroute : direct
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : private pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 30 flight time total : 500 flight time type : 161
ASRS Report	167809
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

My flight plan read as follows: msp direct gep direct 35D. It was accepted as filed, and I had given them an en route altitude of 9000'. After takeoff, ATC requested my 'on course heading,' to which I replied, '330 degrees.' I thought they meant my on course heading to the first waypoint, hence I gave them the 330 degrees. Upon reaching the VOR I turned to 110 degrees, which my LORAN indicated as on course for 35D. 10 mins later I was requested to call ATC after I got on the ground. Their concern was my understanding of the term 'on course.' I told them I interpreted it as 'on course to the first waypoint.' the gentleman empathetically indicated we were both at fault--I, in my interpretation of 'on course,' and he in not questioning my odd altitude/heading relationship, because 330 degrees would not be correct for a flight in a southeast direction. He finished with, 'let's work together so that in the future we can save each other headaches and unhappiness.' I thanked him for his time. In light of the day's events, lesson learned and never forgotten.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA PLT GAVE PRESENT HEADING WHEN ATC ASKED FOR ON COURSE HEADING.

Narrative: MY FLT PLAN READ AS FOLLOWS: MSP DIRECT GEP DIRECT 35D. IT WAS ACCEPTED AS FILED, AND I HAD GIVEN THEM AN ENRTE ALT OF 9000'. AFTER TKOF, ATC REQUESTED MY 'ON COURSE HDG,' TO WHICH I REPLIED, '330 DEGS.' I THOUGHT THEY MEANT MY ON COURSE HDG TO THE FIRST WAYPOINT, HENCE I GAVE THEM THE 330 DEGS. UPON REACHING THE VOR I TURNED TO 110 DEGS, WHICH MY LORAN INDICATED AS ON COURSE FOR 35D. 10 MINS LATER I WAS REQUESTED TO CALL ATC AFTER I GOT ON THE GND. THEIR CONCERN WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM 'ON COURSE.' I TOLD THEM I INTERPRETED IT AS 'ON COURSE TO THE FIRST WAYPOINT.' THE GENTLEMAN EMPATHETICALLY INDICATED WE WERE BOTH AT FAULT--I, IN MY INTERP OF 'ON COURSE,' AND HE IN NOT QUESTIONING MY ODD ALT/HDG RELATIONSHIP, BECAUSE 330 DEGS WOULD NOT BE CORRECT FOR A FLT IN A SE DIRECTION. HE FINISHED WITH, 'LET'S WORK TOGETHER SO THAT IN THE FUTURE WE CAN SAVE EACH OTHER HEADACHES AND UNHAPPINESS.' I THANKED HIM FOR HIS TIME. IN LIGHT OF THE DAY'S EVENTS, LESSON LEARNED AND NEVER FORGOTTEN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.