Narrative:

We were en route on an INS training flight from apc to oak. After crossing rebas intersection, bay approach directed us to proceed direct to the oak VORTAC. Prior to reaching oak, we were given radar vectors for the oak ILS runway 27 final approach course. After final course intercept, we were instructed to contact oak tower on 118.3. After 3 calls, the tower finally responded and acknowledged our request for a low approach and a southbound turn for landing at our final destination, sql. We were instructed to report at the OM. At the marker, the student called the tower, with no response. I was able to contact the tower on a second call, and reported inside of the OM. There was traffic ahead on final for runway 27L (we were on final for runway 27R), which was inbound from hwd. That traffic was ahead and to our left and in sight during our approach. There was additional traffic on downwind for runway 27R. Tower told us to expect a side-step to runway 27L for our low approach due to the traffic landing on runway 27R. A few seconds later, we heard the runway 27R downwind aircraft request a landing on runway 27L. Tower called our traffic, entering a right base, which clearly appeared to be crossing our final approach path for a right base entry for runway 27L. We spotted the traffic, and understood the tower to call our left turnout to proceed to sql, in lieu of a sidestep to the left runway, because of the changeover of traffic proceeding onto runway 27L, which would have been a traffic conflict if we had entered a low approach for that runway. I looked left to clear for traffic (we were still on the 27R final approach course, level at approximately 700'), and then initiated a climbing left turn southbound turn for sql, and got no acknowledgement. My third call to tower included a request for advisories of any inbound traffic to runway 29. Normal procedure is to be handed off to the south tower (127.2) prior to crossing the runway 29 final approach course. The tower finally acknowledged our call and stated that he didn't realize that we were going to make our southbound turn so early, and that he had misunderstood our request, stating: 'I'm sorry, that was my (his) mistake,' and then handed us off to the south tower. However, by this time, we were well south of the runway 29 final approach course. After contacting oak south tower, we were given a traffic advisory for an aircraft on an INS approach to ngz. We had that traffic in sight and passed well to the right and behind. I also spotted another aircraft inbound for runway 29 approximately 2-3 mi from our position, as we crossed the runway 29 final approach course. Additionally, there was traffic landing on runway 29, below and to our right as we passed the final approach course. After approaching the san mateo bridge, we were clear of the oak arsa, cancelled radar services and proceeded inbound to sql for landing. My initial concern was for the safe sep between our aircraft and traffic arriving into oak. Additionally, I felt that this misunderstanding between myself and the oak tower controller would have caused a traffic conflict with runway 27L and runway 29 arrs if any of those aircraft were closer to our position as we proceeded across both final approach courses en route to sql. At no time did I feel that there was any actual traffic conflict, nor was I advised of any from oak tower. However, in the interest of safety and collision avoidance, communications and intentions must be clearly understood by both pilot and controller, and if any doubt exists, an inquiry must be made to clarify. I made several attempts to inquire and clarify west/O a timely response from the tower. Next time I will clarify all intentions to the fullest extend possible on my initial call or response to ATC.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APCH INSTRUCTED TO LEFT TURN OUT INSTEAD OF SIDESTEP TO LEFT RWY. COMPLIES, CROSSES TRAFFIC ON APCH TO ADJACENT RWY.

Narrative: WE WERE ENRTE ON AN INS TRNING FLT FROM APC TO OAK. AFTER XING REBAS INTXN, BAY APCH DIRECTED US TO PROCEED DIRECT TO THE OAK VORTAC. PRIOR TO REACHING OAK, WE WERE GIVEN RADAR VECTORS FOR THE OAK ILS RWY 27 FINAL APCH COURSE. AFTER FINAL COURSE INTERCEPT, WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT OAK TWR ON 118.3. AFTER 3 CALLS, THE TWR FINALLY RESPONDED AND ACKNOWLEDGED OUR REQUEST FOR A LOW APCH AND A SBND TURN FOR LNDG AT OUR FINAL DEST, SQL. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO RPT AT THE OM. AT THE MARKER, THE STUDENT CALLED THE TWR, WITH NO RESPONSE. I WAS ABLE TO CONTACT THE TWR ON A SECOND CALL, AND RPTED INSIDE OF THE OM. THERE WAS TFC AHEAD ON FINAL FOR RWY 27L (WE WERE ON FINAL FOR RWY 27R), WHICH WAS INBND FROM HWD. THAT TFC WAS AHEAD AND TO OUR LEFT AND IN SIGHT DURING OUR APCH. THERE WAS ADDITIONAL TFC ON DOWNWIND FOR RWY 27R. TWR TOLD US TO EXPECT A SIDE-STEP TO RWY 27L FOR OUR LOW APCH DUE TO THE TFC LNDG ON RWY 27R. A FEW SECS LATER, WE HEARD THE RWY 27R DOWNWIND ACFT REQUEST A LNDG ON RWY 27L. TWR CALLED OUR TFC, ENTERING A RIGHT BASE, WHICH CLEARLY APPEARED TO BE XING OUR FINAL APCH PATH FOR A RIGHT BASE ENTRY FOR RWY 27L. WE SPOTTED THE TFC, AND UNDERSTOOD THE TWR TO CALL OUR LEFT TURNOUT TO PROCEED TO SQL, IN LIEU OF A SIDESTEP TO THE LEFT RWY, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGEOVER OF TFC PROCEEDING ONTO RWY 27L, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A TFC CONFLICT IF WE HAD ENTERED A LOW APCH FOR THAT RWY. I LOOKED LEFT TO CLR FOR TFC (WE WERE STILL ON THE 27R FINAL APCH COURSE, LEVEL AT APPROX 700'), AND THEN INITIATED A CLBING LEFT TURN SBND TURN FOR SQL, AND GOT NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. MY THIRD CALL TO TWR INCLUDED A REQUEST FOR ADVISORIES OF ANY INBND TFC TO RWY 29. NORMAL PROC IS TO BE HANDED OFF TO THE S TWR (127.2) PRIOR TO XING THE RWY 29 FINAL APCH COURSE. THE TWR FINALLY ACKNOWLEDGED OUR CALL AND STATED THAT HE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE WERE GOING TO MAKE OUR SBND TURN SO EARLY, AND THAT HE HAD MISUNDERSTOOD OUR REQUEST, STATING: 'I'M SORRY, THAT WAS MY (HIS) MISTAKE,' AND THEN HANDED US OFF TO THE S TWR. HOWEVER, BY THIS TIME, WE WERE WELL S OF THE RWY 29 FINAL APCH COURSE. AFTER CONTACTING OAK S TWR, WE WERE GIVEN A TFC ADVISORY FOR AN ACFT ON AN INS APCH TO NGZ. WE HAD THAT TFC IN SIGHT AND PASSED WELL TO THE RIGHT AND BEHIND. I ALSO SPOTTED ANOTHER ACFT INBND FOR RWY 29 APPROX 2-3 MI FROM OUR POS, AS WE CROSSED THE RWY 29 FINAL APCH COURSE. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS TFC LNDG ON RWY 29, BELOW AND TO OUR RIGHT AS WE PASSED THE FINAL APCH COURSE. AFTER APCHING THE SAN MATEO BRIDGE, WE WERE CLR OF THE OAK ARSA, CANCELLED RADAR SVCS AND PROCEEDED INBND TO SQL FOR LNDG. MY INITIAL CONCERN WAS FOR THE SAFE SEP BTWN OUR ACFT AND TFC ARRIVING INTO OAK. ADDITIONALLY, I FELT THAT THIS MISUNDERSTANDING BTWN MYSELF AND THE OAK TWR CTLR WOULD HAVE CAUSED A TFC CONFLICT WITH RWY 27L AND RWY 29 ARRS IF ANY OF THOSE ACFT WERE CLOSER TO OUR POS AS WE PROCEEDED ACROSS BOTH FINAL APCH COURSES ENRTE TO SQL. AT NO TIME DID I FEEL THAT THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL TFC CONFLICT, NOR WAS I ADVISED OF ANY FROM OAK TWR. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE, COMS AND INTENTIONS MUST BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH PLT AND CTLR, AND IF ANY DOUBT EXISTS, AN INQUIRY MUST BE MADE TO CLARIFY. I MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO INQUIRE AND CLARIFY W/O A TIMELY RESPONSE FROM THE TWR. NEXT TIME I WILL CLARIFY ALL INTENTIONS TO THE FULLEST EXTEND POSSIBLE ON MY INITIAL CALL OR RESPONSE TO ATC.

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.