|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||atc facility : ocn|
airport : crq
|Altitude||msl bound lower : 3000|
msl bound upper : 3000
|Operator||general aviation : personal|
|Make Model Name||Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer|
|Flight Phase||landing other|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 20|
flight time total : 300
flight time type : 25
|Function||observation : observer|
observation : passenger
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
|Anomaly||altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude|
non adherence : far
other anomaly other
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
During IFR practice under VMC conditions with appropriate safety pilot, the following ATC clearance deviation occurred: requested VOR approach to crq, received vectors to ocn VOR at 3000 ft MSL. Over the VOR we received ATC clearance, 'cleared palomar VOR, approach as published expect further clearance at PM45Z.' under the task load of single pilot IFR, even though readback was correct, I executed the approach after the procedure turn ahead of the expect further clearance time. The approach controller was very busy although no other aircraft were known to be in the hold or approach to crq. Approaching crq class D airspace, no further controller instructions were received. I switched to crq tower frequency and received clearance to land with no interference to other IFR or VFR aircraft. While entering pattern to land, I realized I had deviated from ATC clearance. The value of this IFR training was the confusion on my part of phraseology. 'As published' does not mean cleared for the approach. 'Expect further clearance' was the operative ATC phraseology that I confused for executing the approach after the procedure turn as published. Valuable lesson in future IFR flight for holding instructions versus expected clearance for approach. Don't let a busy controller's phraseology confuse me during IFR flight. Utilize 'hold' in verification of ATC instructions. 'Hold as published' would have been much clrer ATC instruction.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A PVT INST RATED SMA PLT PERFORMS A PRACTICE INST APCH INTO CRQ. HE INADVERTENTLY EXECUTES THE APCH PRIOR TO APCH CLRNC. APCH CITES A PHRASEOLOGY PROB AND A MISINTERP OF THE CLRNC.
Narrative: DURING IFR PRACTICE UNDER VMC CONDITIONS WITH APPROPRIATE SAFETY PLT, THE FOLLOWING ATC CLRNC DEV OCCURRED: REQUESTED VOR APCH TO CRQ, RECEIVED VECTORS TO OCN VOR AT 3000 FT MSL. OVER THE VOR WE RECEIVED ATC CLRNC, 'CLRED PALOMAR VOR, APCH AS PUBLISHED EXPECT FURTHER CLRNC AT PM45Z.' UNDER THE TASK LOAD OF SINGLE PLT IFR, EVEN THOUGH READBACK WAS CORRECT, I EXECUTED THE APCH AFTER THE PROC TURN AHEAD OF THE EXPECT FURTHER CLRNC TIME. THE APCH CTLR WAS VERY BUSY ALTHOUGH NO OTHER ACFT WERE KNOWN TO BE IN THE HOLD OR APCH TO CRQ. APCHING CRQ CLASS D AIRSPACE, NO FURTHER CTLR INSTRUCTIONS WERE RECEIVED. I SWITCHED TO CRQ TWR FREQ AND RECEIVED CLRNC TO LAND WITH NO INTERFERENCE TO OTHER IFR OR VFR ACFT. WHILE ENTERING PATTERN TO LAND, I REALIZED I HAD DEVIATED FROM ATC CLRNC. THE VALUE OF THIS IFR TRAINING WAS THE CONFUSION ON MY PART OF PHRASEOLOGY. 'AS PUBLISHED' DOES NOT MEAN CLRED FOR THE APCH. 'EXPECT FURTHER CLRNC' WAS THE OPERATIVE ATC PHRASEOLOGY THAT I CONFUSED FOR EXECUTING THE APCH AFTER THE PROC TURN AS PUBLISHED. VALUABLE LESSON IN FUTURE IFR FLT FOR HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS VERSUS EXPECTED CLRNC FOR APCH. DON'T LET A BUSY CTLR'S PHRASEOLOGY CONFUSE ME DURING IFR FLT. UTILIZE 'HOLD' IN VERIFICATION OF ATC INSTRUCTIONS. 'HOLD AS PUBLISHED' WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH CLRER ATC INSTRUCTION.
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.