Narrative:

Problem: communication but lack of understanding between aircraft and departure control, approach control and tower at reno, nv. Scenario: at approximately xa am PDT, flight from dfw to rno commenced a starks visual approach to runway 16R at reno, nv. Turning crosswind, 2 degree, flaps were selected and the inboard flap indicator showed a split (left=0 degree extension, right=2 degree). The aircraft 'felt' like both sides extended as there were no control problems. Suspecting an indicator malfunction, we attempted to position the flaps back 'up' but the indicator remained split (left=0, right=2). Turning final now at approximately 7 NM, so decision was made to 'go around' to check out the problem. On initiating 'first officer around' and cleaning up the aircraft, informed tower or our intentions. Flaps came up and indicator showed 'up' (left=0, right=0). Approximately over the approach end of runway 16R, tower gave clearance to 'climb to 10,000 runway heading'. Read back. Shortly thereafter tower switched us to departure control (126.3). Contacted departure control and told him 'climbing to 10,000 runway heading' and asked him for clearance to circle the field while we checked out our problem. Departure control approved our request so we made a left hand turn to commence our orbit. Departure control asked if we could maintain 'VFR'? We responded 'affirmative' but asked him to provide traffic advisories. He said 'will certainly do that'. Now we are at 10,000 on a high downwind checking out our problem (doing applicable checklists, etc) and departure control switches us to approach control (119.2) and we contacted them. We 'dirtied-up' the aircraft and the flaps checked out 4.0 degree. So, we informed approach control that our problem was resolved and we were ready to come back in. Approaching normal crosswind turn (but high, 10,000' for a 4400 MSL runway) we started a descent believing that we were cleared for another sparks visual approach runway 16R. Shortly after starting the descent, we were given a 340 degree heading, which seemed normal to us. We informed approach control that we had the field (visually) and he switched us to tower who we contacted and he cleared us to land. A normal approach and landing was made. We didn't realize there was a problem until we reached operations and the tower supervisor wanted us to call him. Mr X (tower supervisor) wanted us to recant the foregoing and then informed us that the reason for the 340 heading during our final descent was to avoid another aircraft (unseen) also descending through 9700'. He seemed to think there was a 'gray area' in the arsa on whether or not we were authorized to descend out of 10,000.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ASYMMETRICAL FLAP EXTENSION INDICATION. CREW ELECTED TO GO AROUND TO CHECK PROBLEM. CONFUSION ON CLRNC REGARDING VISUAL APCH VERSUS IFR APCH.

Narrative: PROBLEM: COM BUT LACK OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ACFT AND DEP CTL, APCH CTL AND TWR AT RENO, NV. SCENARIO: AT APPROX XA AM PDT, FLT FROM DFW TO RNO COMMENCED A STARKS VISUAL APCH TO RWY 16R AT RENO, NV. TURNING XWIND, 2 DEG, FLAPS WERE SELECTED AND THE INBOARD FLAP INDICATOR SHOWED A SPLIT (L=0 DEG EXTENSION, R=2 DEG). THE ACFT 'FELT' LIKE BOTH SIDES EXTENDED AS THERE WERE NO CONTROL PROBLEMS. SUSPECTING AN INDICATOR MALFUNCTION, WE ATTEMPTED TO POSITION THE FLAPS BACK 'UP' BUT THE INDICATOR REMAINED SPLIT (L=0, R=2). TURNING FINAL NOW AT APPROX 7 NM, SO DECISION WAS MADE TO 'GO AROUND' TO CHECK OUT THE PROBLEM. ON INITIATING 'FO AROUND' AND CLEANING UP THE ACFT, INFORMED TWR OR OUR INTENTIONS. FLAPS CAME UP AND INDICATOR SHOWED 'UP' (L=0, R=0). APPROX OVER THE APCH END OF RWY 16R, TWR GAVE CLRNC TO 'CLIMB TO 10,000 RWY HDG'. READ BACK. SHORTLY THEREAFTER TWR SWITCHED US TO DEP CTL (126.3). CONTACTED DEP CTL AND TOLD HIM 'CLIMBING TO 10,000 RWY HDG' AND ASKED HIM FOR CLRNC TO CIRCLE THE FIELD WHILE WE CHECKED OUT OUR PROBLEM. DEP CTL APPROVED OUR REQUEST SO WE MADE A LEFT HAND TURN TO COMMENCE OUR ORBIT. DEP CTL ASKED IF WE COULD MAINTAIN 'VFR'? WE RESPONDED 'AFFIRMATIVE' BUT ASKED HIM TO PROVIDE TFC ADVISORIES. HE SAID 'WILL CERTAINLY DO THAT'. NOW WE ARE AT 10,000 ON A HIGH DOWNWIND CHECKING OUT OUR PROBLEM (DOING APPLICABLE CHECKLISTS, ETC) AND DEP CTL SWITCHES US TO APCH CTL (119.2) AND WE CONTACTED THEM. WE 'DIRTIED-UP' THE ACFT AND THE FLAPS CHECKED OUT 4.0 DEG. SO, WE INFORMED APCH CTL THAT OUR PROBLEM WAS RESOLVED AND WE WERE READY TO COME BACK IN. APCHING NORMAL XWIND TURN (BUT HIGH, 10,000' FOR A 4400 MSL RWY) WE STARTED A DSCNT BELIEVING THAT WE WERE CLRED FOR ANOTHER SPARKS VISUAL APCH RWY 16R. SHORTLY AFTER STARTING THE DSCNT, WE WERE GIVEN A 340 DEG HDG, WHICH SEEMED NORMAL TO US. WE INFORMED APCH CTL THAT WE HAD THE FIELD (VISUALLY) AND HE SWITCHED US TO TWR WHO WE CONTACTED AND HE CLRED US TO LAND. A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG WAS MADE. WE DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WAS A PROBLEM UNTIL WE REACHED OPERATIONS AND THE TWR SUPVR WANTED US TO CALL HIM. MR X (TWR SUPVR) WANTED US TO RECANT THE FOREGOING AND THEN INFORMED US THAT THE REASON FOR THE 340 HDG DURING OUR FINAL DSCNT WAS TO AVOID ANOTHER ACFT (UNSEEN) ALSO DESCENDING THROUGH 9700'. HE SEEMED TO THINK THERE WAS A 'GRAY AREA' IN THE ARSA ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE AUTHORIZED TO DSND OUT OF 10,000.

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.