Narrative:

On the localizer runway 25 at akr, I arrived at the missed approach point high. I called missed approach and notified the approach control of this. Immediately I was told to turn to heading 030 degrees. I elected to make a left turn. There were no other instructions. Very soon the supervisory controller had me make a right turn to 030 degrees. I had turned about 15 degrees. I should have initially turned right since that was the direction of the published missed approach. This was confusion between the controller in training and my interpretation of his directions. Supplemental information from acn 616522: I thought the controller said to 'maintain 3000 ft to the compass locator, cleared for the approach.' the co-pilot who was flying from the left seat said he heard maintain 3000 ft until established, 'which would have allowed us once established to descend to 2300 ft to the compass locator. We flew through the final approach slightly and maintained 3000 ft until established. I asked the controller to verify we could descend to 2300 ft established because we were within 10 mi of the FAF and his only response was that west were 'cleared for the approach.' this caused us to be too close for a normal descent to the MVA and I declared a missed approach at 3000 ft just inside the FAF. The controller told us to 'turn to a heading of 030 degrees and maintain 3000 ft.' the co-pilot drifted to the left to a heading of about 235 degrees and was correcting to the right when the controller gave the heading of 030 degrees again, emphasizing a 'right turn.' the rest of the approach was uneventful and resulted in a successful landing at akr. I spoke with the supervisor and she said the norm is to turn the shortest distance to a new heading and I agreed fully with her. She indicated the controller giving us the final vectors was in training and was alarmed when we initially started heading toward the departure path of cak. I explained I too had a pilot in training in that he just got rated and this was his first flight in the actual aircraft. She indicated no conflict or problem resulted from this incident. Because afis WX was not available at either the destination or alternate airports, a complete briefing on the level of automation to be used for the non precision approach and missed approach should have been completed prior to departure from teb.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HDG TRACK DEV WHEN A G-IV PLT TRAINEE STARTS HIS MISSED APCH TURN IN THE WRONG DIRECTION DURING MISSED APCH AT AKR, OH.

Narrative: ON THE LOC RWY 25 AT AKR, I ARRIVED AT THE MISSED APCH POINT HIGH. I CALLED MISSED APCH AND NOTIFIED THE APCH CTL OF THIS. IMMEDIATELY I WAS TOLD TO TURN TO HDG 030 DEGS. I ELECTED TO MAKE A L TURN. THERE WERE NO OTHER INSTRUCTIONS. VERY SOON THE SUPERVISORY CTLR HAD ME MAKE A R TURN TO 030 DEGS. I HAD TURNED ABOUT 15 DEGS. I SHOULD HAVE INITIALLY TURNED R SINCE THAT WAS THE DIRECTION OF THE PUBLISHED MISSED APCH. THIS WAS CONFUSION BTWN THE CTLR IN TRAINING AND MY INTERP OF HIS DIRECTIONS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 616522: I THOUGHT THE CTLR SAID TO 'MAINTAIN 3000 FT TO THE COMPASS LOCATOR, CLRED FOR THE APCH.' THE CO-PLT WHO WAS FLYING FROM THE L SEAT SAID HE HEARD MAINTAIN 3000 FT UNTIL ESTABLISHED, 'WHICH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US ONCE ESTABLISHED TO DSND TO 2300 FT TO THE COMPASS LOCATOR. WE FLEW THROUGH THE FINAL APCH SLIGHTLY AND MAINTAINED 3000 FT UNTIL ESTABLISHED. I ASKED THE CTLR TO VERIFY WE COULD DSND TO 2300 FT ESTABLISHED BECAUSE WE WERE WITHIN 10 MI OF THE FAF AND HIS ONLY RESPONSE WAS THAT W WERE 'CLRED FOR THE APCH.' THIS CAUSED US TO BE TOO CLOSE FOR A NORMAL DSCNT TO THE MVA AND I DECLARED A MISSED APCH AT 3000 FT JUST INSIDE THE FAF. THE CTLR TOLD US TO 'TURN TO A HDG OF 030 DEGS AND MAINTAIN 3000 FT.' THE CO-PLT DRIFTED TO THE L TO A HDG OF ABOUT 235 DEGS AND WAS CORRECTING TO THE R WHEN THE CTLR GAVE THE HDG OF 030 DEGS AGAIN, EMPHASIZING A 'R TURN.' THE REST OF THE APCH WAS UNEVENTFUL AND RESULTED IN A SUCCESSFUL LNDG AT AKR. I SPOKE WITH THE SUPVR AND SHE SAID THE NORM IS TO TURN THE SHORTEST DISTANCE TO A NEW HDG AND I AGREED FULLY WITH HER. SHE INDICATED THE CTLR GIVING US THE FINAL VECTORS WAS IN TRAINING AND WAS ALARMED WHEN WE INITIALLY STARTED HEADING TOWARD THE DEP PATH OF CAK. I EXPLAINED I TOO HAD A PLT IN TRAINING IN THAT HE JUST GOT RATED AND THIS WAS HIS FIRST FLT IN THE ACTUAL ACFT. SHE INDICATED NO CONFLICT OR PROB RESULTED FROM THIS INCIDENT. BECAUSE AFIS WX WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT EITHER THE DEST OR ALTERNATE ARPTS, A COMPLETE BRIEFING ON THE LEVEL OF AUTOMATION TO BE USED FOR THE NON PRECISION APCH AND MISSED APCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED PRIOR TO DEP FROM TEB.

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.