Pilot's misinterpretation of clearance leads him into a potential conflict with air carrier in traff...

Attributes
ACN	116097
Time
Date	198906
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : day
State Reference	OH
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3600 msl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : day
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	cruise other descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	cruise other descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 3500
ASRS Report	116097
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	conflict : nmac non adherence : far non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	unspecified : 500
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

I was 'cleared for a visual' to 36 (both 36 and 6 were in use (6R and 6L)). The controller (approach? Tower?) said 'medium large transport at 10 to 11 O'clock 2 miles, eastbound'. I did not see the medium large transport (it later turned out he was beneath my wing at 9 O'clock) and said 'where is the medium large transport now'. The controller (excitedly) said, 'right beneath you, climb to 4000', saying or inferring that I had not been cleared for a visual approach. The controller then vectored me to 90 degree, then 270 degree 'until ready to turn final for 36'. -- 'For spacing'. Question: what was the medium large transport doing at 3000 eastbound near the south boundary of the airport when he should have landed on 6R. Question: did the controller clear me 'for the visual' or tell me 'to expect a visual'. Recommendation: 'cleared for the visual' and 'cleared for the ILS' do not have the same impact, perhaps because of the precise vectoring involved in an ILS approach. We should change the terminology.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT'S MISINTERPRETATION OF CLRNC LEADS HIM INTO A POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH ACR IN TRAFFIC PATTERN.

Narrative: I WAS 'CLRED FOR A VISUAL' TO 36 (BOTH 36 AND 6 WERE IN USE (6R AND 6L)). THE CTLR (APCH? TWR?) SAID 'MLG AT 10 TO 11 O'CLOCK 2 MILES, EBND'. I DID NOT SEE THE MLG (IT LATER TURNED OUT HE WAS BENEATH MY WING AT 9 O'CLOCK) AND SAID 'WHERE IS THE MLG NOW'. THE CTLR (EXCITEDLY) SAID, 'RIGHT BENEATH YOU, CLIMB TO 4000', SAYING OR INFERRING THAT I HAD NOT BEEN CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH. THE CTLR THEN VECTORED ME TO 90 DEG, THEN 270 DEG 'UNTIL READY TO TURN FINAL FOR 36'. -- 'FOR SPACING'. QUESTION: WHAT WAS THE MLG DOING AT 3000 EBND NEAR THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE ARPT WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE LANDED ON 6R. QUESTION: DID THE CTLR CLEAR ME 'FOR THE VISUAL' OR TELL ME 'TO EXPECT A VISUAL'. RECOMMENDATION: 'CLRED FOR THE VISUAL' AND 'CLRED FOR THE ILS' DO NOT HAVE THE SAME IMPACT, PERHAPS BECAUSE OF THE PRECISE VECTORING INVOLVED IN AN ILS APCH. WE SHOULD CHANGE THE TERMINOLOGY.

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.

Pilot's misinterpretation of clearance leads him into a potential conflict with air carrier in traffic pattern.