Air taxi pilot reported not flying the full approach into avl as ATC intended due to a poorly worded...

Attributes
ACN	1480931
Time
Date	201709
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	AVL.Airport
State Reference	NC
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Light Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 100 Flight Crew Total 5300 Flight Crew Type 2000
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Track / Heading All Types

Narrative:

We were expecting vectors for the RNAV runway 17 approach into asheville. We were cleared to onziq; told to cross at 6000; cleared for the approach; and told to report inbound. We turned inbound over onziq and began our descent. After descending and flying final for a few miles; approach called and asked us to climb to 8000; which we did. After some vectors and clearing us for the full RNAV 17 approach; they asked us to call their phone number after landing. I called; and the supervisor told me that we should have flown the full approach instead of flying it as vectors. I explained that we didn't recall any phraseology that indicated a full approach; and we were simply told to report inbound. He admitted that they probably should have worded it properly like 'cleared full approach' and 'report procedure turn inbound.' he also admitted that since they rarely do full approaches into asheville; and that the radar issues they were having had them off guard; so to speak. This was indeed my observation; because there were a lot of non-standard ATC phraseology and procedures used today in asheville by approach control and tower/ground.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air taxi pilot reported not flying the full approach into AVL as ATC intended due to a poorly worded clearance.

Narrative: We were expecting vectors for the RNAV RWY 17 approach into Asheville. We were cleared to ONZIQ; told to cross at 6000; cleared for the approach; and told to report inbound. We turned inbound over ONZIQ and began our descent. After descending and flying final for a few miles; Approach called and asked us to climb to 8000; which we did. After some vectors and clearing us for the full RNAV 17 approach; they asked us to call their phone number after landing. I called; and the supervisor told me that we should have flown the full approach instead of flying it as vectors. I explained that we didn't recall any phraseology that indicated a full approach; and we were simply told to report inbound. He admitted that they probably should have worded it properly like 'cleared full approach' and 'report procedure turn inbound.' He also admitted that since they rarely do full approaches into Asheville; and that the radar issues they were having had them off guard; so to speak. This was indeed my observation; because there were a lot of non-standard ATC phraseology and procedures used today in Asheville by approach control and tower/ground.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

Air taxi pilot reported not flying the full approach into avl as ATC intended due to a poorly worded clearance.