Narrative:

When on an IFR from vny to ral on V186, a 300 hour private pilot was flying with view limiting device. He was doing a very good job of navigation as well as altitude ct. At or near the el monte area, the controller (socal) instructed him to track the ral localizer. My student missed the first call or didn't understand it, and I prompted him to 'say again.' on the second communication, the controller instructed him to track the localizer or intercept the localizer. He omitted any instruction as to how to get to the localizer, which was south of our position. (We tuned the localizer frequency and got full deflection right.) in absence of specific instructions, we chose an intercept heading of 110 degrees to intercept an 89 degree localizer. The controller questioned our track with the dreaded 'say heading.' he advised us that we were in class B airspace and gave us vectors back to the north. He seemed upset. We were on an IFR flight plan and the class B airspace should have been ok, which surprised me. In hindsight, I will question an instruction like this with 'suggest heading to intercept localizer.' I have called socal and talked to management and the person I spoke with said he believed the controller should have been specific as to how to intercept the localizer. The supervisor believed the controller assumed I would continue to track the airway until the intersection. We (pilots) are encouraged to not tie up the frequency, but in this case we should have requested clarification. I think the controller could have been more specific.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C172 CFI AND HIS STUDENT INADVERTENTLY FLY INTO LAX CLASS B AIRSPACE BEFORE THE SOCAL CTLR CAN COORD ENTRY W OF RAL, CA.

Narrative: WHEN ON AN IFR FROM VNY TO RAL ON V186, A 300 HR PVT PLT WAS FLYING WITH VIEW LIMITING DEVICE. HE WAS DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF NAV AS WELL AS ALT CT. AT OR NEAR THE EL MONTE AREA, THE CTLR (SOCAL) INSTRUCTED HIM TO TRACK THE RAL LOC. MY STUDENT MISSED THE FIRST CALL OR DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT, AND I PROMPTED HIM TO 'SAY AGAIN.' ON THE SECOND COM, THE CTLR INSTRUCTED HIM TO TRACK THE LOC OR INTERCEPT THE LOC. HE OMITTED ANY INSTRUCTION AS TO HOW TO GET TO THE LOC, WHICH WAS S OF OUR POS. (WE TUNED THE LOC FREQ AND GOT FULL DEFLECTION R.) IN ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, WE CHOSE AN INTERCEPT HDG OF 110 DEGS TO INTERCEPT AN 89 DEG LOC. THE CTLR QUESTIONED OUR TRACK WITH THE DREADED 'SAY HDG.' HE ADVISED US THAT WE WERE IN CLASS B AIRSPACE AND GAVE US VECTORS BACK TO THE N. HE SEEMED UPSET. WE WERE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN AND THE CLASS B AIRSPACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OK, WHICH SURPRISED ME. IN HINDSIGHT, I WILL QUESTION AN INSTRUCTION LIKE THIS WITH 'SUGGEST HDG TO INTERCEPT LOC.' I HAVE CALLED SOCAL AND TALKED TO MGMNT AND THE PERSON I SPOKE WITH SAID HE BELIEVED THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC AS TO HOW TO INTERCEPT THE LOC. THE SUPVR BELIEVED THE CTLR ASSUMED I WOULD CONTINUE TO TRACK THE AIRWAY UNTIL THE INTXN. WE (PLTS) ARE ENCOURAGED TO NOT TIE UP THE FREQ, BUT IN THIS CASE WE SHOULD HAVE REQUESTED CLARIFICATION. I THINK THE CTLR COULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC.

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.