Narrative:

Air carrier X issued clearance to 'fly heading 230 degrees, intercept the san francisco 095 degree radial, descend and maintain 11000 ft.' I then requested the FMS bridge visual runway 28R. TRACON cleared us direct archi. On about 9 previous occasions, I had arrived at archi without any additional route clearance. It is not clear that the original clearance to intercept the sfo 095 degree still applies after being amended to fly direct archi. In fact, on at least some of the prior occasions, the FMS was requested with TRACON with check-in, and their original route clearance was simply to fly direct archi, leaving us to arrive over archi with no further route or approach clearance. Our turns on some of these previous occasions to course 275 were made on assumption! On this occasion, approaching archi, I queried 134.5 about our clearance after archi. Bay approach responded, 'intercept the final approach course.' this was the first time I had heard the term 'final approach course' referring to the sfo 095 degree radial. I inquired again for clarification, 'that is not clear to me, should we intercept the san francisco 095 degree radial?' the controller insisted on using only the terminology 'final approach course' and would not respond otherwise to my repeated attempts to reconcile my uncertainty about intercepting the sfo 095 degree or intercepting, just beyond archi, the runway 28R localizer or centerline. At archi, we turned to a course of 275 on the assumption that it was our 'final approach course.' this ambiguity was promptly resolved on the subsequent bay approach frequency 135.65. This terminology doesn't meet the logical definition of a 'final' approach course. The FMS bridge visual runway 28R approach changes course 2 more times before arriving at the runway. Nor does it appear to meet the aim definition of 'final approach course' as published in flight operations manual. Nor does it serve the purpose of clearly distinguishing a clearance to intercept the VOR radial or the runway localizer and centerline. I suggest 1) bay approach procedure be changed so that a route clearance or expect further route clearance is issued with the clearance to fly direct archi, and 2) terminology describing the FMS bridge visual runway 28R route be changed from 'final approach course' to 'san francisco 095 degree radial' or 'FMS bridge visual runway 28R route only.' callback conversation revealed the following information: TRACON person stated it is normal for the controller to inform an aircraft to fly direct archi fly the final approach course inbound. This was considered an isolated incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR PLT WAS CONFUSED BY CTLR TERMINOLOGY 'FINAL APCH COURSE.'

Narrative: ACR X ISSUED CLRNC TO 'FLY HDG 230 DEGS, INTERCEPT THE SAN FRANCISCO 095 DEG RADIAL, DSND AND MAINTAIN 11000 FT.' I THEN REQUESTED THE FMS BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28R. TRACON CLRED US DIRECT ARCHI. ON ABOUT 9 PREVIOUS OCCASIONS, I HAD ARRIVED AT ARCHI WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL RTE CLRNC. IT IS NOT CLR THAT THE ORIGINAL CLRNC TO INTERCEPT THE SFO 095 DEG STILL APPLIES AFTER BEING AMENDED TO FLY DIRECT ARCHI. IN FACT, ON AT LEAST SOME OF THE PRIOR OCCASIONS, THE FMS WAS REQUESTED WITH TRACON WITH CHK-IN, AND THEIR ORIGINAL RTE CLRNC WAS SIMPLY TO FLY DIRECT ARCHI, LEAVING US TO ARRIVE OVER ARCHI WITH NO FURTHER RTE OR APCH CLRNC. OUR TURNS ON SOME OF THESE PREVIOUS OCCASIONS TO COURSE 275 WERE MADE ON ASSUMPTION! ON THIS OCCASION, APCHING ARCHI, I QUERIED 134.5 ABOUT OUR CLRNC AFTER ARCHI. BAY APCH RESPONDED, 'INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE.' THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD HEARD THE TERM 'FINAL APCH COURSE' REFERRING TO THE SFO 095 DEG RADIAL. I INQUIRED AGAIN FOR CLARIFICATION, 'THAT IS NOT CLR TO ME, SHOULD WE INTERCEPT THE SAN FRANCISCO 095 DEG RADIAL?' THE CTLR INSISTED ON USING ONLY THE TERMINOLOGY 'FINAL APCH COURSE' AND WOULD NOT RESPOND OTHERWISE TO MY REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE MY UNCERTAINTY ABOUT INTERCEPTING THE SFO 095 DEG OR INTERCEPTING, JUST BEYOND ARCHI, THE RWY 28R LOC OR CTRLINE. AT ARCHI, WE TURNED TO A COURSE OF 275 ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS OUR 'FINAL APCH COURSE.' THIS AMBIGUITY WAS PROMPTLY RESOLVED ON THE SUBSEQUENT BAY APCH FREQ 135.65. THIS TERMINOLOGY DOESN'T MEET THE LOGICAL DEFINITION OF A 'FINAL' APCH COURSE. THE FMS BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28R APCH CHANGES COURSE 2 MORE TIMES BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE RWY. NOR DOES IT APPEAR TO MEET THE AIM DEFINITION OF 'FINAL APCH COURSE' AS PUBLISHED IN FLT OPS MANUAL. NOR DOES IT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF CLRLY DISTINGUISHING A CLRNC TO INTERCEPT THE VOR RADIAL OR THE RWY LOC AND CTRLINE. I SUGGEST 1) BAY APCH PROC BE CHANGED SO THAT A RTE CLRNC OR EXPECT FURTHER RTE CLRNC IS ISSUED WITH THE CLRNC TO FLY DIRECT ARCHI, AND 2) TERMINOLOGY DESCRIBING THE FMS BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28R RTE BE CHANGED FROM 'FINAL APCH COURSE' TO 'SAN FRANCISCO 095 DEG RADIAL' OR 'FMS BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28R RTE ONLY.' CALLBACK CONVERSATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: TRACON PERSON STATED IT IS NORMAL FOR THE CTLR TO INFORM AN ACFT TO FLY DIRECT ARCHI FLY THE FINAL APCH COURSE INBOUND. THIS WAS CONSIDERED AN ISOLATED INCIDENT.

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.