IFR small aircraft was issued inappropriate radar vectors for ILS approach.

Attributes
ACN	138703
Time
Date	199003
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : crq
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3400 msl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : san
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 30 flight time total : 240 flight time type : 20
ASRS Report	138703
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

We were approaching ocn VORTAC from the north in solid IMC and being vectored by san diego approach for the ILS 24 at crq. Just north of ocn we were told to turn left to 210 and descend to 4000' for traffic. I acknowledged and complied. (The ordinary vector would have been left to 090.) a couple of mins later we were told '3 mi from escondido, fly heading 210 till intercept, maintain 3400 till established, cleared for the approach.' I acknowledged and descended. However, the localizer needle was fluctuating wildly. It took me a couple of mins to figure out that we could not be on a proper intercept course. In retrospect I realize that we were approximately 10 mi west of where the controller told us we were when he cleared us for the approach and that I erroneously accepted the clearance. We remained on the 210 heading and never got any communication from ATC, much less any indication that there was a problem. I then asked if we were still north of the localizer, thinking that maybe my navigation was off somehow. ATC then asked our assigned heading and then asked us to identify. We were then vectored north of the localizer to a heading of 090 and completed the ILS approach normally. I believe that several human errors occurred: 1) we were told to turn left to 210 when a heading of 090 was correct. 2) we were given incorrect vectors for the approach -- the vectors were not appropriate for our position. Perhaps the controller was looking at the wrong plane. 3) I erroneously accepted the vectors for the approach. 4) ATC never notified us at any time that we were out of position. Apparently they 'forgot' about us north radar. We had to identify before they could find us. 5) I did not maintain positional awareness while being vectored. To avoid recurrence: 1) more cautious radar monitoring of aircraft, especially in actual IMC on instrument apches. 2) stress to the pilot continuous positional awareness by the pilot regardless of any radar vectors issued by ATC. This can be done in instrument instruction and in the continuing safety programs.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IFR SMA WAS ISSUED INAPPROPRIATE RADAR VECTORS FOR ILS APCH.

Narrative: WE WERE APCHING OCN VORTAC FROM THE N IN SOLID IMC AND BEING VECTORED BY SAN DIEGO APCH FOR THE ILS 24 AT CRQ. JUST N OF OCN WE WERE TOLD TO TURN LEFT TO 210 AND DSND TO 4000' FOR TFC. I ACKNOWLEDGED AND COMPLIED. (THE ORDINARY VECTOR WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT TO 090.) A COUPLE OF MINS LATER WE WERE TOLD '3 MI FROM ESCONDIDO, FLY HDG 210 TILL INTERCEPT, MAINTAIN 3400 TILL ESTABLISHED, CLRED FOR THE APCH.' I ACKNOWLEDGED AND DESCENDED. HOWEVER, THE LOC NEEDLE WAS FLUCTUATING WILDLY. IT TOOK ME A COUPLE OF MINS TO FIGURE OUT THAT WE COULD NOT BE ON A PROPER INTERCEPT COURSE. IN RETROSPECT I REALIZE THAT WE WERE APPROX 10 MI W OF WHERE THE CTLR TOLD US WE WERE WHEN HE CLRED US FOR THE APCH AND THAT I ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED THE CLRNC. WE REMAINED ON THE 210 HDG AND NEVER GOT ANY COM FROM ATC, MUCH LESS ANY INDICATION THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM. I THEN ASKED IF WE WERE STILL N OF THE LOC, THINKING THAT MAYBE MY NAVIGATION WAS OFF SOMEHOW. ATC THEN ASKED OUR ASSIGNED HDG AND THEN ASKED US TO IDENT. WE WERE THEN VECTORED N OF THE LOC TO A HDG OF 090 AND COMPLETED THE ILS APCH NORMALLY. I BELIEVE THAT SEVERAL HUMAN ERRORS OCCURRED: 1) WE WERE TOLD TO TURN LEFT TO 210 WHEN A HDG OF 090 WAS CORRECT. 2) WE WERE GIVEN INCORRECT VECTORS FOR THE APCH -- THE VECTORS WERE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR OUR POSITION. PERHAPS THE CTLR WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG PLANE. 3) I ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED THE VECTORS FOR THE APCH. 4) ATC NEVER NOTIFIED US AT ANY TIME THAT WE WERE OUT OF POSITION. APPARENTLY THEY 'FORGOT' ABOUT US N RADAR. WE HAD TO IDENT BEFORE THEY COULD FIND US. 5) I DID NOT MAINTAIN POSITIONAL AWARENESS WHILE BEING VECTORED. TO AVOID RECURRENCE: 1) MORE CAUTIOUS RADAR MONITORING OF ACFT, ESPECIALLY IN ACTUAL IMC ON INSTRUMENT APCHES. 2) STRESS TO THE PLT CONTINUOUS POSITIONAL AWARENESS BY THE PLT REGARDLESS OF ANY RADAR VECTORS ISSUED BY ATC. THIS CAN BE DONE IN INSTRUMENT INSTRUCTION AND IN THE CONTINUING SAFETY PROGRAMS.

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.