Narrative:

After flying two ILS 5 approaches to cgz [and] headed north to intercept the tfd 001 radial transition to chd NDB; I contacted phoenix approach at 4;000 ft; about 10 NM from chd requesting NDB 4R approach. I was radar identified; told to proceed own navigation and maintain VFR. I advised descending from 4;000 to 3;000. I was told to maintain at or above 3;500; report beacon outbound. I stopped descent at 3;500; and called over the NDB outbound. I was cleared for the approach and told to maintain VFR. I read that back. I did not hear any other restriction or reporting point. I elected to fly the approach out of the published holding pattern and initiated descent to the procedure turn altitude of 2;800 MSL. After turning inbound I continued descent at about 300 FPM planning to arrive at MDA before the beacon. Shortly after turning inbound I requested switch to tower frequency; which was granted. I called tower; apologizing for late frequency switch. I was told to immediately climb; then immediately turn left; followed by a recommended heading of 270. I complied. I then asked for reason. Tower said that approach claimed I had been given an altitude restriction of 3;500 until established inbound. After contacting approach; they again made the same claim; if true; neither I nor my safety pilot; a cfii; heard it or acknowledged it to the best of our recollection. While this would have required a much higher descent rate; it would not have changed the fact that I wasn't switched to tower frequency until less than three miles from the airport and would not have had an altitude restriction at that point. Possible mistakes made: 1. Any altitude restriction given with an approach clearance should be made with emphasis; as a normal clearance while established within published segment of the approach cancels any non-published restrictions. The only published restriction is to maintain 3;400 ft until established outbound for procedure turn. 2. Approach controller should have been monitoring compliance with altitude restriction and said something when I was clearly 700 ft below the alleged restriction before turning inbound. 3. Tower should have been given the inbound and tower should have seen the target on their brite radar display. 4. While tower was using opposite direction runway; they should have either passed any restrictions to approach control; not approved the inbound; or held departure traffic when my aircraft was too close for separation; especially when they did not have radio communications. 5. While I was not asked if I had the ATIS; I had listened; and knew the opposite runway was in use. I should have queried approach about separation for opposite direction traffic. My safety pilot did see traffic departing opposite direction from chd and had visual separation. As far as I know there was no loss of separation. I was focused on the aspects of flying the approach and had not considered the apparent agreements by phx TRACON with chd to restrict traffic on this particular approach to keep traffic above the chd class D prior to turning inbound. I do not know why this would be needed if approach would transfer radio contact and control to the tower as soon as the approach clearance was issued.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A general aviation pilot was questioned by ATC during an NDB 4R approach to CHD regarding assigned altitude compliance.

Narrative: After flying two ILS 5 approaches to CGZ [and] headed north to intercept the TFD 001 radial transition to CHD NDB; I contacted Phoenix Approach at 4;000 FT; about 10 NM from CHD requesting NDB 4R approach. I was RADAR identified; told to proceed own navigation and maintain VFR. I advised descending from 4;000 to 3;000. I was told to maintain at or above 3;500; report beacon outbound. I stopped descent at 3;500; and called over the NDB outbound. I was cleared for the approach and told to maintain VFR. I read that back. I did not hear any other restriction or reporting point. I elected to fly the approach out of the published holding pattern and initiated descent to the procedure turn altitude of 2;800 MSL. After turning inbound I continued descent at about 300 FPM planning to arrive at MDA before the beacon. Shortly after turning inbound I requested switch to Tower frequency; which was granted. I called Tower; apologizing for late frequency switch. I was told to immediately climb; then immediately turn left; followed by a recommended heading of 270. I complied. I then asked for reason. Tower said that approach claimed I had been given an altitude restriction of 3;500 until established inbound. After contacting Approach; they again made the same claim; if true; neither I nor my safety pilot; a CFII; heard it or acknowledged it to the best of our recollection. While this would have required a much higher descent rate; it would not have changed the fact that I wasn't switched to Tower frequency until less than three miles from the airport and would not have had an altitude restriction at that point. Possible mistakes made: 1. Any altitude restriction given with an approach clearance should be made with emphasis; as a normal clearance while established within published segment of the approach cancels any non-published restrictions. The only published restriction is to maintain 3;400 FT until established outbound for procedure turn. 2. Approach Controller should have been monitoring compliance with altitude restriction and said something when I was clearly 700 FT below the alleged restriction before turning inbound. 3. Tower should have been given the inbound and Tower should have seen the target on their Brite RADAR display. 4. While Tower was using opposite direction runway; they should have either passed any restrictions to Approach Control; not approved the inbound; or held departure traffic when my aircraft was too close for separation; especially when they did not have radio communications. 5. While I was not asked if I had the ATIS; I had listened; and knew the opposite runway was in use. I should have queried approach about separation for opposite direction traffic. My safety pilot did see traffic departing opposite direction from CHD and had visual separation. As far as I know there was no loss of separation. I was focused on the aspects of flying the approach and had not considered the apparent agreements by PHX TRACON with CHD to restrict traffic on this particular approach to keep traffic above the CHD Class D prior to turning inbound. I do not know why this would be needed if Approach would transfer radio contact and control to the Tower as soon as the approach clearance was issued.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.