Narrative:

My student and I had filed a tower enroute flight plan to conduct a DME arc and the VOR a approach to okb. Our plan was to conduct a 6 DME arc off the ocn VOR from the 270 radial to the 240 radial; then proceed inbound to the ocn VOR for the full approach (meaning including the procedure turn) for the VOR a approach to okb. We informed ATC of this plan prior to beginning the arc and they told us 'approved and to report finishing the arc and report inbound to the VOR for the approach. We finished the arc and as instructed reported inbound to the VOR for the approach.we crossed the VOR and began the outbound leg of the direct entry for the procedure turn at which point ATC told us to switch to unicom and report back with them on the missed approach. We changed to unicom and when we were procedure turn inbound; another aircraft on frequency relayed that ATC wanted to talk to us and to switch back to their frequency. When we reported back with ATC; we were told to climb to 3;000 ft (from the procedure turn altitude of 2;500 ft) and turn immediately to a heading of 190 degrees and that we had committed a 'potential pilot deviation. After calling ATC on the ground they told us that there was a 'potential loss of separation' with another aircraft because ATC expected us to proceed inbound to the airport after reaching the VOR and that they did not expect us to execute the procedure turn. We explained to ATC that before conducting the DME arc we had told ATC that we would indeed be conducting the procedure turn and that they should be able to hear this on the tape replay.in addition; we explained that since we were conducting a flight under IFR and we were not being vectored onto the final approach course; nor on a no pt part of the approach procedure; accordingly; a procedure turn is required unless ATC directs otherwise which they did not do.after this short conversation; ATC said they understood why we conducted the procedure turn and would get back to us if they still thought we committed a pilot deviation and as of this writing there has been no further contact. I am now assuming that our actions were considered appropriate and that perhaps ATC was wrong to assume that we would not be conducting the procedure turn.still there are lessons to be learned. In the future; I will take the time to make sure that in situations like this where there is lack of clarity between me and ATC; I will take the time to clarify intentions. Even when you are right; it helps everyone out to be clear and it doesn't take much time to say 'FYI; we will be making the procedure turn at the VOR'. ATC does their best and has a difficult job and so do pilots; so a few extra words to make sure we are both on the same page is worth it. And of course; in instances where we as pilots are doing something wrong; taking the time to clarify will avoid a real pilot deviation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A breakdown in communications between the instructor pilot and SoCal Approach resulted in a possible loss of separation during the pilots' attempt to fly the VOR-A IAP to OCN.

Narrative: My student and I had filed a Tower enroute flight plan to conduct a DME arc and the VOR A approach to OKB. Our plan was to conduct a 6 DME arc off the OCN VOR from the 270 radial to the 240 radial; then proceed inbound to the OCN VOR for the full approach (meaning including the procedure turn) for the VOR A approach to OKB. We informed ATC of this plan prior to beginning the arc and they told us 'approved and to report finishing the arc and report inbound to the VOR for the approach. We finished the arc and as instructed reported inbound to the VOR for the approach.We crossed the VOR and began the outbound leg of the direct entry for the procedure turn at which point ATC told us to switch to UNICOM and report back with them on the missed approach. We changed to UNICOM and when we were procedure turn inbound; another aircraft on frequency relayed that ATC wanted to talk to us and to switch back to their frequency. When we reported back with ATC; we were told to climb to 3;000 FT (from the procedure turn altitude of 2;500 FT) and turn immediately to a heading of 190 degrees and that we had committed a 'potential pilot deviation. After calling ATC on the ground they told us that there was a 'potential loss of separation' with another aircraft because ATC expected us to proceed inbound to the airport after reaching the VOR and that they did not expect us to execute the procedure turn. We explained to ATC that before conducting the DME arc we had told ATC that we would indeed be conducting the procedure turn and that they should be able to hear this on the tape replay.In addition; we explained that since we were conducting a flight under IFR and we were not being vectored onto the final approach course; nor on a No PT part of the approach procedure; accordingly; a procedure turn is required unless ATC directs otherwise which they did not do.After this short conversation; ATC said they understood why we conducted the procedure turn and would get back to us if they still thought we committed a pilot deviation and as of this writing there has been no further contact. I am now assuming that our actions were considered appropriate and that perhaps ATC was wrong to assume that we would not be conducting the procedure turn.Still there are lessons to be learned. In the future; I will take the time to make sure that in situations like this where there is lack of clarity between me and ATC; I will take the time to clarify intentions. Even when you are right; it helps everyone out to be clear and it doesn't take much time to say 'FYI; we will be making the procedure turn at the VOR'. ATC does their best and has a difficult job and so do pilots; so a few extra words to make sure we are both on the same page is worth it. And of course; in instances where we as pilots are doing something wrong; taking the time to clarify will avoid a real pilot deviation.

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.