Narrative:

Air carrier X was being radar vectored for a visual approach to runway 34 hpn by ny approach. We were issued traffic to follow, an mdt, approximately 5 mi ahead on final, and clearance for a visual approach. When we were handed off to hpn tower the controller told us we were now #3 to follow a single engine small aircraft on left base and reduce speed. As we turned a 4-5 mi final I had the small aircraft on base about 2 mi ahead. As the small aircraft returned final I lost contact in the evening sun. The captain, not comfortable with the spacing, asked me to request a 360. The 360 was denied and followed by 'turn right to 29.' since this would bring us to a modified right base to 34 we turned right to 290 degree out of the turn and approaching the final approach course, we asked the tower where they would like us. He began to tell us (unprofessionally) that we were told to make a right turn to enter a left base for runway 29 and that we can't just do what we want to. Meanwhile we were flying thru final for runway 34. I responded that we heard no reference to runway 29 and asked where he would like us now. He said we were on right base (when in fact we were thru final on the left base) 'turn direct to runway 34 cleared to land.' after landing we were expecting a call but no message came. We assumed the controller rethought his actions and let it go. The problems I see associated with this situation are as follows: when handed to local control our sequence and reference traffic was changed to a slow small aircraft not compatible with our speed. This spacing would not have worked had we slowed to minimum approach speed. The controller asked twice for speed reductions prior to our request for a 360 for spacing. When we were given a turn off final the instruction was 'turn right 29'. There was no reference to runway 29 (our operations specifications do not allow landing on runway 29 at hpn). Last and probably most important! The fact that even after realizing that we were not getting the same meaning of 'turn right 29' the controller began chastising us over the frequency instead of realizing that we were still moving at 140 KTS and needed a place to go.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC.

Narrative: ACR X WAS BEING RADAR VECTORED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 34 HPN BY NY APCH. WE WERE ISSUED TFC TO FOLLOW, AN MDT, APPROX 5 MI AHEAD ON FINAL, AND CLRNC FOR A VISUAL APCH. WHEN WE WERE HANDED OFF TO HPN TWR THE CTLR TOLD US WE WERE NOW #3 TO FOLLOW A SINGLE ENGINE SMA ON LEFT BASE AND REDUCE SPEED. AS WE TURNED A 4-5 MI FINAL I HAD THE SMA ON BASE ABOUT 2 MI AHEAD. AS THE SMA RETURNED FINAL I LOST CONTACT IN THE EVENING SUN. THE CAPT, NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE SPACING, ASKED ME TO REQUEST A 360. THE 360 WAS DENIED AND FOLLOWED BY 'TURN RIGHT TO 29.' SINCE THIS WOULD BRING US TO A MODIFIED RIGHT BASE TO 34 WE TURNED RIGHT TO 290 DEG OUT OF THE TURN AND APCHING THE FINAL APCH COURSE, WE ASKED THE TWR WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE US. HE BEGAN TO TELL US (UNPROFESSIONALLY) THAT WE WERE TOLD TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN TO ENTER A LEFT BASE FOR RWY 29 AND THAT WE CAN'T JUST DO WHAT WE WANT TO. MEANWHILE WE WERE FLYING THRU FINAL FOR RWY 34. I RESPONDED THAT WE HEARD NO REFERENCE TO RWY 29 AND ASKED WHERE HE WOULD LIKE US NOW. HE SAID WE WERE ON RIGHT BASE (WHEN IN FACT WE WERE THRU FINAL ON THE LEFT BASE) 'TURN DIRECT TO RWY 34 CLRED TO LAND.' AFTER LNDG WE WERE EXPECTING A CALL BUT NO MESSAGE CAME. WE ASSUMED THE CTLR RETHOUGHT HIS ACTIONS AND LET IT GO. THE PROBLEMS I SEE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITUATION ARE AS FOLLOWS: WHEN HANDED TO LCL CTL OUR SEQUENCE AND REF TFC WAS CHANGED TO A SLOW SMA NOT COMPATIBLE WITH OUR SPEED. THIS SPACING WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED HAD WE SLOWED TO MINIMUM APCH SPEED. THE CTLR ASKED TWICE FOR SPEED REDUCTIONS PRIOR TO OUR REQUEST FOR A 360 FOR SPACING. WHEN WE WERE GIVEN A TURN OFF FINAL THE INSTRUCTION WAS 'TURN RIGHT 29'. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO RWY 29 (OUR OPS SPECS DO NOT ALLOW LNDG ON RWY 29 AT HPN). LAST AND PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANT! THE FACT THAT EVEN AFTER REALIZING THAT WE WERE NOT GETTING THE SAME MEANING OF 'TURN RIGHT 29' THE CTLR BEGAN CHASTISING US OVER THE FREQ INSTEAD OF REALIZING THAT WE WERE STILL MOVING AT 140 KTS AND NEEDED A PLACE TO GO.

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.