GA small aircraft failed to alter traffic pattern as clearance for landing on an intersecting runway...

Attributes
ACN	187772
Time
Date	199108
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dal
State Reference	TX
Altitude	agl bound lower : 1500 agl bound upper : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	Marginal
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : dal
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear
Flight Phase	other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 800 flight time type : 600
ASRS Report	187772
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : non radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

I was directed to set up for a landing from the west on runway 13R with a right base. As I entered the base leg the conversation went like this: small aircraft change your directions, turn right for a landing on 18. Response: roger, turning right for 18. As I approached the numbers for 36, I questioned the controller if he wanted me to turn left downwind for 18. The conversation continued: I asked do you want me to turn downwind for 18 now. Tower: no what are you doing over there? I told you to turn right for 18. Small aircraft: I did turn right for 18 I'll turn back west. Tower: turn right immediately and enter a right downwind for 18. Small aircraft: roger, right downwind for 18. I believe this miscom could have been avoided if the controller would have said 'turn right for a right downwind for runway 18'. It is impossible to turn right for 18 from that position approaching 13R. The pilot should have asked for a better understanding of the directive instead of assuming. I would have been glad to discuss this on the telephone with the controller.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA FAILED TO ALTER TFC PATTERN AS CLRNC FOR LNDG ON AN INTERSECTING RWY.

Narrative: I WAS DIRECTED TO SET UP FOR A LNDG FROM THE W ON RWY 13R WITH A R BASE. AS I ENTERED THE BASE LEG THE CONVERSATION WENT LIKE THIS: SMA CHANGE YOUR DIRECTIONS, TURN R FOR A LNDG ON 18. RESPONSE: ROGER, TURNING R FOR 18. AS I APCHED THE NUMBERS FOR 36, I QUESTIONED THE CTLR IF HE WANTED ME TO TURN L DOWNWIND FOR 18. THE CONVERSATION CONTINUED: I ASKED DO YOU WANT ME TO TURN DOWNWIND FOR 18 NOW. TWR: NO WHAT ARE YOU DOING OVER THERE? I TOLD YOU TO TURN R FOR 18. SMA: I DID TURN R FOR 18 I'LL TURN BACK W. TWR: TURN R IMMEDIATELY AND ENTER A R DOWNWIND FOR 18. SMA: ROGER, R DOWNWIND FOR 18. I BELIEVE THIS MISCOM COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE CTLR WOULD HAVE SAID 'TURN R FOR A R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 18'. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TURN R FOR 18 FROM THAT POS APCHING 13R. THE PLT SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIRECTIVE INSTEAD OF ASSUMING. I WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD TO DISCUSS THIS ON THE TELEPHONE WITH THE CTLR.

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.