Narrative:

While being vectored to ILS runway 11R, msp approach control gave us a heading of 170 degrees north of the localizer course. We alerted approach control of our crossing the localizer course and he responded that we were to 'intercept and proceed inbound as directed.' we were never directed to do so! The controller gave us another heading, then vectored us off the approach and handed us off to another controller who vectored us back for another approach to a successful completion. Later I phoned the facility and talked to the supervisor who said we were cleared to intercept the localizer. However, it was a concurrent clearance with another aircraft, but without a stated break between xmissions. I disagree, there was no clearance to intercept given by ATC to us. My first officer also concurs. In conclusion there was a high level of frequency congestion as a result of numerous aircraft on the parallel approachs. I believe that the controller was over burdened and responded accordingly to us under duress. If he, in fact, cleared us to intercept, then why did he use such a large intercept angle in IMC, not declare a break between another flight and our clearance, not verify a clearance acceptance response from us. In my opinion, ATC deviated from normal communication procedures and attempted to put the burden on us for the circumstances. No such clearance was issued.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 FLC THROUGH THE LOC WHEN THE FLC DID NOT RECEIVE CLRNC TO INTERCEPT OR CLRNC FOR THE APCH.

Narrative: WHILE BEING VECTORED TO ILS RWY 11R, MSP APCH CTL GAVE US A HDG OF 170 DEGS N OF THE LOC COURSE. WE ALERTED APCH CTL OF OUR XING THE LOC COURSE AND HE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE TO 'INTERCEPT AND PROCEED INBOUND AS DIRECTED.' WE WERE NEVER DIRECTED TO DO SO! THE CTLR GAVE US ANOTHER HEADING, THEN VECTORED US OFF THE APCH AND HANDED US OFF TO ANOTHER CTLR WHO VECTORED US BACK FOR ANOTHER APCH TO A SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION. LATER I PHONED THE FACILITY AND TALKED TO THE SUPVR WHO SAID WE WERE CLRED TO INTERCEPT THE LOC. HOWEVER, IT WAS A CONCURRENT CLRNC WITH ANOTHER ACFT, BUT WITHOUT A STATED BREAK BTWN XMISSIONS. I DISAGREE, THERE WAS NO CLRNC TO INTERCEPT GIVEN BY ATC TO US. MY FO ALSO CONCURS. IN CONCLUSION THERE WAS A HIGH LEVEL OF FREQ CONGESTION AS A RESULT OF NUMEROUS ACFT ON THE PARALLEL APCHS. I BELIEVE THAT THE CTLR WAS OVER BURDENED AND RESPONDED ACCORDINGLY TO US UNDER DURESS. IF HE, IN FACT, CLRED US TO INTERCEPT, THEN WHY DID HE USE SUCH A LARGE INTERCEPT ANGLE IN IMC, NOT DECLARE A BREAK BTWN ANOTHER FLT AND OUR CLRNC, NOT VERIFY A CLRNC ACCEPTANCE RESPONSE FROM US. IN MY OPINION, ATC DEVIATED FROM NORMAL COM PROCS AND ATTEMPTED TO PUT THE BURDEN ON US FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES. NO SUCH CLRNC WAS ISSUED.

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.