GA small aircraft made s-turns to lose altitude while being vectored for a visual approach.

Attributes
ACN	112544
Time
Date	198905
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : spi
State Reference	IL
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	Marginal
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : spi tower : agc
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Recip Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : private pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 50 flight time total : 2500
ASRS Report	112544
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

While on an IFR flight plan, I began normal approach to springfield, il, capital city airport. I was told to take radar vectors for visual approach. I then requested an instrument approach and was denied and told to take a visual approach. At the time, my aircraft was too high for proper approach. I was given a heading. I took the given mandated heading but started a slight turn to the left and right to assist in the losing of altitude. I was suddenly told by the controller that I might interfere with the IFR approach of another aircraft. Please note that the other aircraft was not denied its requested IFR approach. I then went to the new assigned heading and landed successfully. No explanation was ever given to me regarding why my aircraft was required to use visual approach while other aircraft was given the instrument approach. There was no conflict between either aircraft nor was there any danger at any time. However, I was verbally criticized for leaving the assigned heading even though it was for a few degrees and it was required for the safe operation of my aircraft.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA MADE S-TURNS TO LOSE ALT WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR A VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: WHILE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN, I BEGAN NORMAL APCH TO SPRINGFIELD, IL, CAPITAL CITY ARPT. I WAS TOLD TO TAKE RADAR VECTORS FOR VISUAL APCH. I THEN REQUESTED AN INSTRUMENT APCH AND WAS DENIED AND TOLD TO TAKE A VISUAL APCH. AT THE TIME, MY ACFT WAS TOO HIGH FOR PROPER APCH. I WAS GIVEN A HDG. I TOOK THE GIVEN MANDATED HDG BUT STARTED A SLIGHT TURN TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT TO ASSIST IN THE LOSING OF ALT. I WAS SUDDENLY TOLD BY THE CTLR THAT I MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THE IFR APCH OF ANOTHER ACFT. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE OTHER ACFT WAS NOT DENIED ITS REQUESTED IFR APCH. I THEN WENT TO THE NEW ASSIGNED HDG AND LANDED SUCCESSFULLY. NO EXPLANATION WAS EVER GIVEN TO ME REGARDING WHY MY ACFT WAS REQUIRED TO USE VISUAL APCH WHILE OTHER ACFT WAS GIVEN THE INSTRUMENT APCH. THERE WAS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN EITHER ACFT NOR WAS THERE ANY DANGER AT ANY TIME. HOWEVER, I WAS VERBALLY CRITICIZED FOR LEAVING THE ASSIGNED HDG EVEN THOUGH IT WAS FOR A FEW DEGREES AND IT WAS REQUIRED FOR THE SAFE OPERATION OF MY ACFT.

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.