Narrative:

In bos TCA, especially below 4000' very clear VMC conditions prevailed. ATIS announced ILS runway 27 in use. I tuned in ILS 27 navigation after being put on radar vectors and descent into the air traffic area. I was told to expect approach to runway 22L. Although I do not recall whether the controller said visibility, I would believe he did since an 'expect ILS 22L' absolutely would have resulted in my tuning in ILS 22L and otherwise setting up for this precision approach. This was not done. About 3-4 mi from the airport, the controller told me I was 2 from a fix that he named (not known to me), told me to contact the tower on a frequency he gave me, and told me to intercept the localizer. I should have told him that I had not been told to expect an ILS to 22 and was not prepared. I said nothing and attempted to look up the ILS 22R, tune it in and get set for it. In my haste, I inadvertently set the tower frequency incorrectly. I immediately realized this and went back to the approach controller. By the time I had set up for ILS 22R, however, I had already traveled too far. When I asked approach to say again the tower frequency, he did so, but asked whether I would rather have a visibility approach. I said yes. He asked whether I had the field in sight. I said no. He gave me a heading of 310 degrees (which would intersect the extended centerline for runway 22L at a 90 degree angle). Almost immediately, some 2 mi to my left, I saw runway 22L as well as its parallel runway, 22R. Now it was no longer clear to me whether the approach controller wanted me to conduct a visibility approach or stay on the 310 degree heading. I was also no longer certain whether I was expected to switch to tower as previously instructed. Because the approach controller was continuously busy instructing other traffic during the short time I was crossing the extended centerline of 22L and rapidly approaching that of 22R, I could not ask him for clarification. I, therefore, switched to tower frequency. The tower controller told me to continue and cleared me to land, but to hold short of runway 27 which was active. Later I learned that the approach controller had a different view of what I was supposed to have done. On the ground there was some additional confusion which, I believe, coming on the heels of the above related episode, suggested the need for careful scrutiny by the tower people. I learned that the controllers were concerned that I was considering returning to runway 22, (I was not). At his request, I telephoned the tower supervisor. I explained the above to him. He said he was satisfied. I asked whether anything more would come of this and he said no, my explanation ended the matter.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMT HEADING TRACK DEVIATION DURING RADAR VECTORS TO VISUAL APCH AT BOS.

Narrative: IN BOS TCA, ESPECIALLY BELOW 4000' VERY CLR VMC CONDITIONS PREVAILED. ATIS ANNOUNCED ILS RWY 27 IN USE. I TUNED IN ILS 27 NAV AFTER BEING PUT ON RADAR VECTORS AND DSCNT INTO THE ATA. I WAS TOLD TO EXPECT APCH TO RWY 22L. ALTHOUGH I DO NOT RECALL WHETHER THE CTLR SAID VIS, I WOULD BELIEVE HE DID SINCE AN 'EXPECT ILS 22L' ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN MY TUNING IN ILS 22L AND OTHERWISE SETTING UP FOR THIS PRECISION APCH. THIS WAS NOT DONE. ABOUT 3-4 MI FROM THE ARPT, THE CTLR TOLD ME I WAS 2 FROM A FIX THAT HE NAMED (NOT KNOWN TO ME), TOLD ME TO CONTACT THE TWR ON A FREQ HE GAVE ME, AND TOLD ME TO INTERCEPT THE LOC. I SHOULD HAVE TOLD HIM THAT I HAD NOT BEEN TOLD TO EXPECT AN ILS TO 22 AND WAS NOT PREPARED. I SAID NOTHING AND ATTEMPTED TO LOOK UP THE ILS 22R, TUNE IT IN AND GET SET FOR IT. IN MY HASTE, I INADVERTENTLY SET THE TWR FREQ INCORRECTLY. I IMMEDIATELY REALIZED THIS AND WENT BACK TO THE APCH CTLR. BY THE TIME I HAD SET UP FOR ILS 22R, HOWEVER, I HAD ALREADY TRAVELED TOO FAR. WHEN I ASKED APCH TO SAY AGAIN THE TWR FREQ, HE DID SO, BUT ASKED WHETHER I WOULD RATHER HAVE A VIS APCH. I SAID YES. HE ASKED WHETHER I HAD THE FIELD IN SIGHT. I SAID NO. HE GAVE ME A HDG OF 310 DEGS (WHICH WOULD INTERSECT THE EXTENDED CENTERLINE FOR RWY 22L AT A 90 DEG ANGLE). ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, SOME 2 MI TO MY L, I SAW RWY 22L AS WELL AS ITS PARALLEL RWY, 22R. NOW IT WAS NO LONGER CLR TO ME WHETHER THE APCH CTLR WANTED ME TO CONDUCT A VIS APCH OR STAY ON THE 310 DEG HDG. I WAS ALSO NO LONGER CERTAIN WHETHER I WAS EXPECTED TO SWITCH TO TWR AS PREVIOUSLY INSTRUCTED. BECAUSE THE APCH CTLR WAS CONTINUOUSLY BUSY INSTRUCTING OTHER TFC DURING THE SHORT TIME I WAS XING THE EXTENDED CENTERLINE OF 22L AND RAPIDLY APCHING THAT OF 22R, I COULD NOT ASK HIM FOR CLARIFICATION. I, THEREFORE, SWITCHED TO TWR FREQ. THE TWR CTLR TOLD ME TO CONTINUE AND CLRED ME TO LAND, BUT TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 27 WHICH WAS ACTIVE. LATER I LEARNED THAT THE APCH CTLR HAD A DIFFERENT VIEW OF WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE. ON THE GND THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL CONFUSION WHICH, I BELIEVE, COMING ON THE HEELS OF THE ABOVE RELATED EPISODE, SUGGESTED THE NEED FOR CAREFUL SCRUTINY BY THE TWR PEOPLE. I LEARNED THAT THE CTLRS WERE CONCERNED THAT I WAS CONSIDERING RETURNING TO RWY 22, (I WAS NOT). AT HIS REQUEST, I TELEPHONED THE TWR SUPVR. I EXPLAINED THE ABOVE TO HIM. HE SAID HE WAS SATISFIED. I ASKED WHETHER ANYTHING MORE WOULD COME OF THIS AND HE SAID NO, MY EXPLANATION ENDED THE MATTER.

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