Narrative:

I was operating as the PF (pilot flying) on this sector and we were flying the dyamd 3 arrival; approaching the archi intersection. Shortly before arriving at the intersection; norcal approach instructed us to 'fly the ILS 28R after archi.' normally; in visual conditions when flying the FMS bridge visual; it is common for ATC to instruct us to 'intercept the FMS bridge visual routing only' meaning that we will fly the lateral track; but will not descend until cleared by the controller. On this particular flight; the controller told us to fly the ILS 28R after archi. The clearance was vague and ambiguous. At the time; we were close to archi and on the glide slope; so I said to my first officer (first officer) that we would just fly the glide slope; but clarify the clearance. My first officer was trying to verify the clearance; but the frequency was congested (for the record; the controller was issuing identical clearances to multiple airplanes on the arrival with the same phraseology). I started on the glide slope when we both agreed that it might be better to hold off on descending before we obtained a specific approach clearance. At the time; I believe we were at about 7;770 ft at archi on the glide slope; but I immediately leveled off and climbed back to 8;000 ft until we received clarification. We were handed off to the final approach controller and clarified the clearance and he told us to descend to 4;000 ft and to expect the approach clearance shortly. There was no loss of separation and at no time did the controller query us on the altitude. We continued to an uneventful and stabilized approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 Captain reported confusion on approach to SFO regarding an altitude assignment after NORCAL TRACON issued an ambiguous clearance.

Narrative: I was operating as the PF (Pilot Flying) on this sector and we were flying the DYAMD 3 arrival; approaching the ARCHI intersection. Shortly before arriving at the intersection; NORCAL Approach instructed us to 'Fly the ILS 28R after ARCHI.' Normally; in visual conditions when flying the FMS Bridge visual; it is common for ATC to instruct us to 'Intercept the FMS bridge visual routing only' meaning that we will fly the lateral track; but will not descend until cleared by the Controller. On this particular flight; the Controller told us to fly the ILS 28R after ARCHI. The clearance was vague and ambiguous. At the time; we were close to ARCHI and on the glide slope; so I said to my FO (First Officer) that we would just fly the glide slope; but clarify the clearance. My FO was trying to verify the clearance; but the frequency was congested (for the record; the Controller was issuing identical clearances to multiple airplanes on the arrival with the same phraseology). I started on the glide slope when we both agreed that it might be better to hold off on descending before we obtained a specific approach clearance. At the time; I believe we were at about 7;770 ft at ARCHI on the glide slope; but I immediately leveled off and climbed back to 8;000 ft until we received clarification. We were handed off to the final approach Controller and clarified the clearance and he told us to descend to 4;000 ft and to expect the approach clearance shortly. There was no loss of separation and at no time did the Controller query us on the altitude. We continued to an uneventful and stabilized approach.

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.