Narrative:

I was training a low-time student pilot on cross country operations. I was flying VFR over the top at 6500 ft MSL. The ceiling was approximately 1500 ft AGL and the tops were approximately 4000 ft MSL. I have flown this exact routing numerous times in similar WX conditions. In the past, I have always received vectors to the ILS, and my radios, charts and mindset were tuned to expect that routing. Just a few mi east of VOR abc (about 20 NM from the destination airport), I finally received a completely unexpected full IFR clearance: 'cleared to xyz airport, turn right to 270 degrees, direct to abc, fly outbound on the 207 degree radial from abc to intercept V123, V234, bcd, direct maintain 5000 ft, expect further clearance 10 mins.' I read that clearance back, and I was immediately told to descend and maintain 4000 ft which took me into IMC. I turned to 270 degrees and began my descent. I then noted that I was already west of VOR abc (approximately 10 seconds had lapsed after the clearance was issued to me, and I literally had no time to process it, and start setting up for the approach). Immediately noting that the 207 degree radial was to my left, I turned to intercept it per my clearance. The controller immediately queried me what my heading was and asked me to confirm my clearance. I informed controller that I was west of abc, and was turning to intercept the 207 degree radial. Controller then issued yet another vector. At that point, another controller broke in, and apologized for not catching the error on my readback, and issued me yet another vector to intercept the intended correct radial of '270 degrees.' since I now had 2 controllers on the network issuing conflicting instructions, I asked to confirm which controller I was working with. The second controller confirmed that he was the 'trainer' training the first controller. I am not sure whether the trainee read the correct radial of 270 degrees initially and I mistakenly transposed the numbers, or if the trainee incorrectly issued '207 degrees' to begin with. However, I am 100% confident that I read back '207 degrees' and the initial controller did not correct this. At this point, I had my hands full while trying to simultaneously supervise my student's understandably imprecise control of the airplane in IMC, orient myself to the newly assigned clearance I was unprepared to expect, breaking out charts, tuning, identing, and twisting vors, etc. At the same time, I was still unsure about the proper clearance I had been assigned due to the confusion among the 2 controllers, and the incorrectly assigned radial. The proximity of several mountains to my immediate southwest was also a factor in the confusion. I took control of the airplane from the student pilot momentarily, as I continued to sort things out with ATC on the radio. 2 or 3 additional xmissions were required back and forth from ATC to reorient me to the proper clearance, as well as provide a new vector to intercept the intended airway. Finally, things were straightened out and I proceeded on course and successfully landed at my destination airport after flying the ILS in actual IMC. En route on the approach, I was informed to call the supervisor after landing. After contacting supervisor and explaining events from my perspective, the supervisor informed me that I should have been more prepared to fly this routing since it was the standard routing for that sector. I concur 100% (if, in fact, this was the standard routing). However, a post-facto review of the latest commercial chart airway manual indicates that the standard tower en route control routing from my origin airport to my destination airport is not even close to the relatively convoluted and unexpected clearance I received. The supervisor explained that separation was never lost during the incident and thanked me for calling to give my perspective. Supervisor did a great job explaining his point of view and gave me some insights on the system. However, I think he also had a limited understanding of the situation from the perspective of someone sitting in a cockpit. He informed me he was neither a pilot or a CFI. In the future, I will familiarize myself in depth with all possible tec routings from my origin to destination airports. Moreover, in the future, ifi am unfamiliar with an unexpected and convoluted full IFR clearance, and will need more time to process the clearance to properly get set up, I will not hesitate to request to remain in VMC and receive a delay vector while I get things sorted out. Pilots can't execute a clearance if they don't understand it.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C172 INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT BECAME CONFUSED WHEN ISSUED AN UNEXPECTED FULL IFR CLRNC.

Narrative: I WAS TRAINING A LOW-TIME STUDENT PLT ON XCOUNTRY OPS. I WAS FLYING VFR OVER THE TOP AT 6500 FT MSL. THE CEILING WAS APPROX 1500 FT AGL AND THE TOPS WERE APPROX 4000 FT MSL. I HAVE FLOWN THIS EXACT ROUTING NUMEROUS TIMES IN SIMILAR WX CONDITIONS. IN THE PAST, I HAVE ALWAYS RECEIVED VECTORS TO THE ILS, AND MY RADIOS, CHARTS AND MINDSET WERE TUNED TO EXPECT THAT ROUTING. JUST A FEW MI E OF VOR ABC (ABOUT 20 NM FROM THE DEST ARPT), I FINALLY RECEIVED A COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED FULL IFR CLRNC: 'CLRED TO XYZ ARPT, TURN R TO 270 DEGS, DIRECT TO ABC, FLY OUTBOUND ON THE 207 DEG RADIAL FROM ABC TO INTERCEPT V123, V234, BCD, DIRECT MAINTAIN 5000 FT, EXPECT FURTHER CLRNC 10 MINS.' I READ THAT CLRNC BACK, AND I WAS IMMEDIATELY TOLD TO DSND AND MAINTAIN 4000 FT WHICH TOOK ME INTO IMC. I TURNED TO 270 DEGS AND BEGAN MY DSCNT. I THEN NOTED THAT I WAS ALREADY W OF VOR ABC (APPROX 10 SECONDS HAD LAPSED AFTER THE CLRNC WAS ISSUED TO ME, AND I LITERALLY HAD NO TIME TO PROCESS IT, AND START SETTING UP FOR THE APCH). IMMEDIATELY NOTING THAT THE 207 DEG RADIAL WAS TO MY L, I TURNED TO INTERCEPT IT PER MY CLRNC. THE CTLR IMMEDIATELY QUERIED ME WHAT MY HEADING WAS AND ASKED ME TO CONFIRM MY CLRNC. I INFORMED CTLR THAT I WAS W OF ABC, AND WAS TURNING TO INTERCEPT THE 207 DEG RADIAL. CTLR THEN ISSUED YET ANOTHER VECTOR. AT THAT POINT, ANOTHER CTLR BROKE IN, AND APOLOGIZED FOR NOT CATCHING THE ERROR ON MY READBACK, AND ISSUED ME YET ANOTHER VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE INTENDED CORRECT RADIAL OF '270 DEGS.' SINCE I NOW HAD 2 CTLRS ON THE NETWORK ISSUING CONFLICTING INSTRUCTIONS, I ASKED TO CONFIRM WHICH CTLR I WAS WORKING WITH. THE SECOND CTLR CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS THE 'TRAINER' TRAINING THE FIRST CTLR. I AM NOT SURE WHETHER THE TRAINEE READ THE CORRECT RADIAL OF 270 DEGS INITIALLY AND I MISTAKENLY TRANSPOSED THE NUMBERS, OR IF THE TRAINEE INCORRECTLY ISSUED '207 DEGS' TO BEGIN WITH. HOWEVER, I AM 100% CONFIDENT THAT I READ BACK '207 DEGS' AND THE INITIAL CTLR DID NOT CORRECT THIS. AT THIS POINT, I HAD MY HANDS FULL WHILE TRYING TO SIMULTANEOUSLY SUPERVISE MY STUDENT'S UNDERSTANDABLY IMPRECISE CTL OF THE AIRPLANE IN IMC, ORIENT MYSELF TO THE NEWLY ASSIGNED CLRNC I WAS UNPREPARED TO EXPECT, BREAKING OUT CHARTS, TUNING, IDENTING, AND TWISTING VORS, ETC. AT THE SAME TIME, I WAS STILL UNSURE ABOUT THE PROPER CLRNC I HAD BEEN ASSIGNED DUE TO THE CONFUSION AMONG THE 2 CTLRS, AND THE INCORRECTLY ASSIGNED RADIAL. THE PROX OF SEVERAL MOUNTAINS TO MY IMMEDIATE SW WAS ALSO A FACTOR IN THE CONFUSION. I TOOK CTL OF THE AIRPLANE FROM THE STUDENT PLT MOMENTARILY, AS I CONTINUED TO SORT THINGS OUT WITH ATC ON THE RADIO. 2 OR 3 ADDITIONAL XMISSIONS WERE REQUIRED BACK AND FORTH FROM ATC TO REORIENT ME TO THE PROPER CLRNC, AS WELL AS PROVIDE A NEW VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE INTENDED AIRWAY. FINALLY, THINGS WERE STRAIGHTENED OUT AND I PROCEEDED ON COURSE AND SUCCESSFULLY LANDED AT MY DEST ARPT AFTER FLYING THE ILS IN ACTUAL IMC. ENRTE ON THE APCH, I WAS INFORMED TO CALL THE SUPVR AFTER LNDG. AFTER CONTACTING SUPVR AND EXPLAINING EVENTS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE SUPVR INFORMED ME THAT I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PREPARED TO FLY THIS ROUTING SINCE IT WAS THE STANDARD ROUTING FOR THAT SECTOR. I CONCUR 100% (IF, IN FACT, THIS WAS THE STANDARD ROUTING). HOWEVER, A POST-FACTO REVIEW OF THE LATEST COMMERCIAL CHART AIRWAY MANUAL INDICATES THAT THE STANDARD TWR ENRTE CTL ROUTING FROM MY ORIGIN ARPT TO MY DEST ARPT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE RELATIVELY CONVOLUTED AND UNEXPECTED CLRNC I RECEIVED. THE SUPVR EXPLAINED THAT SEPARATION WAS NEVER LOST DURING THE INCIDENT AND THANKED ME FOR CALLING TO GIVE MY PERSPECTIVE. SUPVR DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING HIS POINT OF VIEW AND GAVE ME SOME INSIGHTS ON THE SYS. HOWEVER, I THINK HE ALSO HAD A LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF THE SIT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOMEONE SITTING IN A COCKPIT. HE INFORMED ME HE WAS NEITHER A PLT OR A CFI. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL FAMILIARIZE MYSELF IN DEPTH WITH ALL POSSIBLE TEC ROUTINGS FROM MY ORIGIN TO DEST ARPTS. MOREOVER, IN THE FUTURE, IFI AM UNFAMILIAR WITH AN UNEXPECTED AND CONVOLUTED FULL IFR CLRNC, AND WILL NEED MORE TIME TO PROCESS THE CLRNC TO PROPERLY GET SET UP, I WILL NOT HESITATE TO REQUEST TO REMAIN IN VMC AND RECEIVE A DELAY VECTOR WHILE I GET THINGS SORTED OUT. PLTS CAN'T EXECUTE A CLRNC IF THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

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.