Narrative:

At approximately 18 mi from airport, were cleared for a visual approach to runway 29 at atw. Due to altitude we needed to lose and a solid layer of clouds directly ahead, I turned the aircraft approximately 30 degrees to left of a straight line to the runway. ATC soon advised that the maneuver had placed us in conflict with another (previously not called) IFR. I explained that I had to maneuver to avoid clouds and descend, and that I understood I was cleared to maneuver during a visual approach. ATC responded that I could maneuver 'within reason' but that I should have informed him prior to turn. I probably should have advised, but I didn't think 30 degrees wasn't within reason. I think ATC should have also advised me of the other IFR. I don't know how much of a conflict actually took place, as the controller never volunteered that information. My opinion as to the cause of the incident: controller assumed I would fly directly to the runway, I assumed the area was clear to maneuver as necessary for clouds separation, descent, etc. This incident could have been prevented if either the controller or myself had queried the other about what path we would take or if there were any conflicts with other aircraft or clouds. I think that from now on I will make a point of clarifying just how much space I have to maneuver on a visual approach, and I still believe that the controllers should advise pilots as to potential conflicts, eg, 'cleared for visual approach, traffic 9 O'clock, 6 mi, east bound IFR at 4000 ft.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT ENSUES OUT OF A HDG TRACK DEV DURING A VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: AT APPROX 18 MI FROM ARPT, WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 29 AT ATW. DUE TO ALT WE NEEDED TO LOSE AND A SOLID LAYER OF CLOUDS DIRECTLY AHEAD, I TURNED THE ACFT APPROX 30 DEGS TO L OF A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE RWY. ATC SOON ADVISED THAT THE MANEUVER HAD PLACED US IN CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER (PREVIOUSLY NOT CALLED) IFR. I EXPLAINED THAT I HAD TO MANEUVER TO AVOID CLOUDS AND DSND, AND THAT I UNDERSTOOD I WAS CLRED TO MANEUVER DURING A VISUAL APCH. ATC RESPONDED THAT I COULD MANEUVER 'WITHIN REASON' BUT THAT I SHOULD HAVE INFORMED HIM PRIOR TO TURN. I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE ADVISED, BUT I DIDN'T THINK 30 DEGS WASN'T WITHIN REASON. I THINK ATC SHOULD HAVE ALSO ADVISED ME OF THE OTHER IFR. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF A CONFLICT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE, AS THE CTLR NEVER VOLUNTEERED THAT INFO. MY OPINION AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE INCIDENT: CTLR ASSUMED I WOULD FLY DIRECTLY TO THE RWY, I ASSUMED THE AREA WAS CLR TO MANEUVER AS NECESSARY FOR CLOUDS SEPARATION, DSCNT, ETC. THIS INCIDENT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF EITHER THE CTLR OR MYSELF HAD QUERIED THE OTHER ABOUT WHAT PATH WE WOULD TAKE OR IF THERE WERE ANY CONFLICTS WITH OTHER ACFT OR CLOUDS. I THINK THAT FROM NOW ON I WILL MAKE A POINT OF CLARIFYING JUST HOW MUCH SPACE I HAVE TO MANEUVER ON A VISUAL APCH, AND I STILL BELIEVE THAT THE CTLRS SHOULD ADVISE PLTS AS TO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS, EG, 'CLRED FOR VISUAL APCH, TFC 9 O'CLOCK, 6 MI, E BOUND IFR AT 4000 FT.'

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.