Small aircraft pilot requests ILS approach. Denied, but offered a visual approach on parallel runway...

Attributes
ACN	148176
Time
Date	199006
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : msp
State Reference	MN
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3000 msl bound upper : 3000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : msp
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : private
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 25 flight time total : 1090 flight time type : 25
ASRS Report	148176
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	instruction : instructor
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Asked for ILS 11R. Told impossible. Accepted visibility 11L. Told to descend to 3000', cleared to 11L and to change to tower frequency. Again heard, I thought, cleared for 11L. Frequency very busy, and when I finally was able to get on frequency, I was over airport. Encoder had failed during flight. I thought this was why then had me so high. Overheard controller tell plane behind me that I was a right downwind for 11R. I believe I questioned him re: this. I was not told to overfly the field. I thought since encoder had failed they thought I was lower. I realize now I should have questioned controller as to his intention with me. Was told to climb immediately and given heading. Feel controller should have given more instruction, and that I should have asked more questions because of confusion and amount of traffic. Had other traffic in sight. Never closer than 2500' or more to another aircraft at any time. This was vertical with me above them. I was in mn to pick up transplant patient to return him to pnc. Filed lifeguard flight plan for return trip. Possibly should have filed same on flight up to mn, but did not want to expect priority on flight up since no emergency existed. Since frequency was so busy, I hesitated to break in to ask. Will always ask questions should the occasion arise again. Feel I should have received specific instruction re: overflying field. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states that he feels this was totally a communication mixup. When he questioned the controller his response was, 'I climbed you for the approach, not to land.' this didn't clear things up a bit. Reporter had an instrument aboard, but instrument was not used to flying in TCAS and was not much help. Feels the transponder malfunction did not help much, either. Used to better treatment at dallas, so rather distressed. Amazed at different attitudes of controllers in various parts of the country.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT REQUESTS ILS APCH. DENIED, BUT OFFERED A VISUAL APCH ON PARALLEL RWY. VECTORED OVERHEAD THE FIELD AT 3000'. PLT CONFUSED AS TO INTENTIONS AT THIS POINT.

Narrative: ASKED FOR ILS 11R. TOLD IMPOSSIBLE. ACCEPTED VIS 11L. TOLD TO DSND TO 3000', CLRED TO 11L AND TO CHANGE TO TWR FREQ. AGAIN HEARD, I THOUGHT, CLRED FOR 11L. FREQ VERY BUSY, AND WHEN I FINALLY WAS ABLE TO GET ON FREQ, I WAS OVER ARPT. ENCODER HAD FAILED DURING FLT. I THOUGHT THIS WAS WHY THEN HAD ME SO HIGH. OVERHEARD CTLR TELL PLANE BEHIND ME THAT I WAS A RIGHT DOWNWIND FOR 11R. I BELIEVE I QUESTIONED HIM RE: THIS. I WAS NOT TOLD TO OVERFLY THE FIELD. I THOUGHT SINCE ENCODER HAD FAILED THEY THOUGHT I WAS LOWER. I REALIZE NOW I SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED CTLR AS TO HIS INTENTION WITH ME. WAS TOLD TO CLB IMMEDIATELY AND GIVEN HDG. FEEL CTLR SHOULD HAVE GIVEN MORE INSTRUCTION, AND THAT I SHOULD HAVE ASKED MORE QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF CONFUSION AND AMOUNT OF TFC. HAD OTHER TFC IN SIGHT. NEVER CLOSER THAN 2500' OR MORE TO ANOTHER ACFT AT ANY TIME. THIS WAS VERT WITH ME ABOVE THEM. I WAS IN MN TO PICK UP TRANSPLANT PATIENT TO RETURN HIM TO PNC. FILED LIFEGUARD FLT PLAN FOR RETURN TRIP. POSSIBLY SHOULD HAVE FILED SAME ON FLT UP TO MN, BUT DID NOT WANT TO EXPECT PRIORITY ON FLT UP SINCE NO EMER EXISTED. SINCE FREQ WAS SO BUSY, I HESITATED TO BREAK IN TO ASK. WILL ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS SHOULD THE OCCASION ARISE AGAIN. FEEL I SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION RE: OVERFLYING FIELD. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES THAT HE FEELS THIS WAS TOTALLY A COM MIXUP. WHEN HE QUESTIONED THE CTLR HIS RESPONSE WAS, 'I CLBED YOU FOR THE APCH, NOT TO LAND.' THIS DIDN'T CLEAR THINGS UP A BIT. RPTR HAD AN INSTR ABOARD, BUT INSTR WAS NOT USED TO FLYING IN TCAS AND WAS NOT MUCH HELP. FEELS THE XPONDER MALFUNCTION DID NOT HELP MUCH, EITHER. USED TO BETTER TREATMENT AT DALLAS, SO RATHER DISTRESSED. AMAZED AT DIFFERENT ATTITUDES OF CTLRS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.

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.

Small aircraft pilot requests ILS approach. Denied, but offered a visual approach on parallel runway. Vectored overhead the field at 3000'. Pilot confused as to intentions at this point.