Small aircraft pilot on practice approach 'cleared for approach' attempts procedure turn.

Attributes
ACN	183341
Time
Date	199107
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : ign
State Reference	NY
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3000 msl bound upper : 3000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : n90 tower : swf
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : private pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time total : 880
ASRS Report	183341
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Requested practice VOR 27 approach. While level at 3000 ft approach controller vectored me from the southeast to scrug intersection. Shortly before scrug I was 'cleared for approach, contact tower'. I advised tower 'coming up on scrug' and started a turn northeast toward ign for the procedure turn. Tower called me. They had been advised by approach I was going the wrong way. I immediately executed a 180 degree turn back to the inbound course. It became clear that I had been expected to proceed directly to the field from scrug (3.8 mi away). I was not expecting a short approach from my position and altitude and assumed I should execute a full approach. Although the controller said I should not execute a missed approach, I did not interpret this to mean to avoid ign on the initial approach. Even though it was a busy day neither we nor the controller should have 'assumed' what action would be taken after scrug intersection. If not properly instructed, I should have asked for clarification. (In the meantime the tower forgot I had announced scrug and in the confusion lost track - no radar - of my position.) we were not aware of any resulting traffic conflict.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT ON PRACTICE APCH 'CLRED FOR APCH' ATTEMPTS PROC TURN.

Narrative: REQUESTED PRACTICE VOR 27 APCH. WHILE LEVEL AT 3000 FT APCH CTLR VECTORED ME FROM THE SE TO SCRUG INTXN. SHORTLY BEFORE SCRUG I WAS 'CLRED FOR APCH, CONTACT TWR'. I ADVISED TWR 'COMING UP ON SCRUG' AND STARTED A TURN NE TOWARD IGN FOR THE PROC TURN. TWR CALLED ME. THEY HAD BEEN ADVISED BY APCH I WAS GOING THE WRONG WAY. I IMMEDIATELY EXECUTED A 180 DEG TURN BACK TO THE INBOUND COURSE. IT BECAME CLR THAT I HAD BEEN EXPECTED TO PROCEED DIRECTLY TO THE FIELD FROM SCRUG (3.8 MI AWAY). I WAS NOT EXPECTING A SHORT APCH FROM MY POS AND ALT AND ASSUMED I SHOULD EXECUTE A FULL APCH. ALTHOUGH THE CTLR SAID I SHOULD NOT EXECUTE A MISSED APCH, I DID NOT INTERPRET THIS TO MEAN TO AVOID IGN ON THE INITIAL APCH. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A BUSY DAY NEITHER WE NOR THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE 'ASSUMED' WHAT ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AFTER SCRUG INTXN. IF NOT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION. (IN THE MEANTIME THE TWR FORGOT I HAD ANNOUNCED SCRUG AND IN THE CONFUSION LOST TRACK - NO RADAR - OF MY POS.) WE WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY RESULTING TFC CONFLICT.

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.