Narrative:

Captain was pilot monitoring (pm). First officer was pilot flying (PF). We were flying at our assigned altitude of 10;000 feet and assigned airspeed of 250 knots. Callsign aircraft X on ny approach control frequency 127.3; we were assigned heading of 060 degrees by ny approach control. I replied with our new heading assignment; clearly and concisely; back to approach control without any question or objection from the controller. Flying along at our new heading of 060 for a good minute maybe two minutes approach controller came on and questioned our heading and assigned us a new heading of 180. I replied that we were on our assigned heading of 060 but turning to our new assigned heading to now 180 degrees. Ny approach controllers reply; 'who assigned you that heading; no [one] gave you that heading;' asking why we were flying a heading of 060. I told him we were turning to 180. He came back on again to tell us one more time that no one had assigned us our heading of 060. Both myself and the first officer heard the approach controller quite clearly; aircraft fly heading of 060 vectors to final.it was late at night; after lengthy weather delays into lga; however; my first officer and myself are very sure we heard our callsign followed by a directive to fly a heading of 060. Again; we read it back with no objections from approach control. It is always very important to speak clearly and concisely when communicating with air traffic control. I believe simply responding with our new assigned heading was the right call. These things can always be figured out on the ground.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB-175 flight crew reported being questioned by ATC regarding assigned heading while on the MIILTON FOUR arrival to LGA.

Narrative: Captain was Pilot Monitoring (PM). First Officer was Pilot Flying (PF). We were flying at our assigned altitude of 10;000 feet and assigned airspeed of 250 knots. Callsign Aircraft X on NY Approach Control frequency 127.3; we were assigned heading of 060 degrees by NY Approach Control. I replied with our new heading assignment; clearly and concisely; back to Approach Control without any question or objection from the Controller. Flying along at our new heading of 060 for a good minute maybe two minutes Approach Controller came on and questioned our heading and assigned us a new heading of 180. I replied that we were on our assigned heading of 060 but turning to our new assigned heading to now 180 degrees. NY Approach controllers reply; 'who assigned you that heading; no [one] gave you that heading;' asking why we were flying a heading of 060. I told him we were turning to 180. He came back on again to tell us one more time that no one had assigned us our heading of 060. Both myself and the First Officer heard the Approach Controller quite clearly; Aircraft fly heading of 060 vectors to final.It was late at night; after lengthy weather delays into LGA; however; my First Officer and myself are very sure we heard our callsign followed by a directive to fly a heading of 060. Again; we read it back with no objections from Approach Control. It is always very important to speak clearly and concisely when communicating with air traffic control. I believe simply responding with our new assigned heading was the right call. These things can always be figured out on the 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.