Pilot conducting circling approach. Pilot controller confusion about traffic pattern.

Attributes
ACN	112115
Time
Date	198905
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mry
State Reference	CA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 700 agl bound upper : 700
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : mry
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 2 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other other
Route In Use	approach : circling enroute airway : mry
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 3000 flight time type : 350
ASRS Report	112115
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : non radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

While conducting ILS approach to runway 10 at mry, approach asked us to maintain flank speed and then asked if we could accept the final approach intercept 1 mi outside the OM--all due to air carrier traffic inbound. Although that's going to make things real busy for us, we agree to both. ATIS is advising 'ILS 10 approach, circle to runway 28L.' just as we begin breaking out of the cloud, we're turned over to tower. We stop our descent about 700' AGL, start a gradual left turn to enter right downwind, call tower, and receive (with 99.44% certainty), 'enter left downwind, runway 28,' which we parrot back. As we are established on left downwind, I notice we're closer to houses and the ground than if we were on a right downwind, and about this time the tower comes back with, 'small aircraft, you were supposed to be on a right downwind, cleared to land 28L.' I then responded, 'we were prepared to enter a right downwind, but we understood he wanted us on a left.' no response from tower. I then acknowledged, 'cleared to land 28L,' and did so. Maybe he did say to enter right downwind and during our high workload approach, I misunderstood and the tower didn't correct my readback--although I'm almost certain that wasn't it. Maybe he meant to say, 'enter downwind for 28 left,' but put the 'left' in front of the 'downwind'--I don't know. Either way, it's an all too common human deficiency that is well chronicled in numerous 'callbacks.' what I am more concerned about is the adversarial/him-or-me confrontation which is now present in the ATC system. I would have liked to have phoned the tower to clarify the matter, but didn't feel like providing any rope to hand myself rightly or wrongly and apparently the tower felt the same with their non response. I intend to double tweak my ears and listen as carefully as possible--but am considering reading back everything including altimeter settings and current times just to get it on the tape.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT CONDUCTING CIRCLING APCH. PLT CTLR CONFUSION ABOUT TRAFFIC PATTERN.

Narrative: WHILE CONDUCTING ILS APCH TO RWY 10 AT MRY, APCH ASKED US TO MAINTAIN FLANK SPD AND THEN ASKED IF WE COULD ACCEPT THE FINAL APCH INTERCEPT 1 MI OUTSIDE THE OM--ALL DUE TO ACR TFC INBND. ALTHOUGH THAT'S GOING TO MAKE THINGS REAL BUSY FOR US, WE AGREE TO BOTH. ATIS IS ADVISING 'ILS 10 APCH, CIRCLE TO RWY 28L.' JUST AS WE BEGIN BREAKING OUT OF THE CLOUD, WE'RE TURNED OVER TO TWR. WE STOP OUR DSCNT ABOUT 700' AGL, START A GRADUAL LEFT TURN TO ENTER RIGHT DOWNWIND, CALL TWR, AND RECEIVE (WITH 99.44% CERTAINTY), 'ENTER LEFT DOWNWIND, RWY 28,' WHICH WE PARROT BACK. AS WE ARE ESTABLISHED ON LEFT DOWNWIND, I NOTICE WE'RE CLOSER TO HOUSES AND THE GND THAN IF WE WERE ON A RIGHT DOWNWIND, AND ABOUT THIS TIME THE TWR COMES BACK WITH, 'SMA, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ON A RIGHT DOWNWIND, CLRED TO LAND 28L.' I THEN RESPONDED, 'WE WERE PREPARED TO ENTER A RIGHT DOWNWIND, BUT WE UNDERSTOOD HE WANTED US ON A LEFT.' NO RESPONSE FROM TWR. I THEN ACKNOWLEDGED, 'CLRED TO LAND 28L,' AND DID SO. MAYBE HE DID SAY TO ENTER RIGHT DOWNWIND AND DURING OUR HIGH WORKLOAD APCH, I MISUNDERSTOOD AND THE TWR DIDN'T CORRECT MY READBACK--ALTHOUGH I'M ALMOST CERTAIN THAT WASN'T IT. MAYBE HE MEANT TO SAY, 'ENTER DOWNWIND FOR 28 LEFT,' BUT PUT THE 'LEFT' IN FRONT OF THE 'DOWNWIND'--I DON'T KNOW. EITHER WAY, IT'S AN ALL TOO COMMON HUMAN DEFICIENCY THAT IS WELL CHRONICLED IN NUMEROUS 'CALLBACKS.' WHAT I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE ADVERSARIAL/HIM-OR-ME CONFRONTATION WHICH IS NOW PRESENT IN THE ATC SYS. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE PHONED THE TWR TO CLARIFY THE MATTER, BUT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE PROVIDING ANY ROPE TO HAND MYSELF RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY AND APPARENTLY THE TWR FELT THE SAME WITH THEIR NON RESPONSE. I INTEND TO DOUBLE TWEAK MY EARS AND LISTEN AS CAREFULLY AS POSSIBLE--BUT AM CONSIDERING READING BACK EVERYTHING INCLUDING ALTIMETER SETTINGS AND CURRENT TIMES JUST TO GET IT ON THE TAPE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.