Narrative:

This flight was a dual instrument training flight conducted on an instrument flight plan and in accordance with an ATC clearance for a round robin flight to okv, va, for multiple approachs returning to the point of origination, gai, md. The IFR flight plan filed included okv, va, as an intermediate fix for the multiple approachs and gai, md, as the destination. The student and I received the IFR clearance on the ground at gai which established our intentions and mindset that we were conducting approachs at okv airport. The instrument training flight was routine as we contacted bwi approach initially and throughout the flight up through contact with dulles approach. At that point, the student requested the VOR/DME-a approach to okv airport which was our intention. Evidently there was a miscom and we ended up with a clearance to conduct the VOR-a instrument approach to martinsburg airport. As I can best recall, specific reference to mrb airport or okv airport was not included in the approach clearance, and I did not catch the differences in approach procedures between the VOR/DME-a (to okv) and the VOR-a (to martinsburg). Our mindset made us believe what we heard was what we wanted, which was a VOR/DME-a instrument approach into mrb. I then became aware of a possible conflict with what ATC thought we were doing and what we were actually doing when we were directed to contacted mrb control tower instead of the okv CTAF. At that directed handoff from dulles approach, my student contacted mrb tower and then I took over the communications verifying our miscoms. At that point we had passed over mrb VOR and were tracking outbound on the VOR/DME-a instrument approach to okv airport. The control tower thought we were conducting the VOR-a approach to mrb airport, and when we clarified our intentions, had us reestablish contact with dulles approach with an amended clearance for a heading and altitude to fly and eventually vectors for the VOR/DME-a instrument approach to okv airport. During the entire miscoms event, we were VMC. This event drives home the requirement for complete and proper communications procedures that if not followed or strictly scrutinized by both controller and pilot, can turn into a potential problem. When receiving VFR/IFR ATC clrncs, especially on training flts where the instructor has many things to divide his/her attention on, communications and IFR clrncs require great vigilance to prevent miscoms. The additional factor that added to our miscoms was our mindset that ATC knew we were going to okv airport for multiple approachs and that the names of the approachs to okv (VOR/DME-a) and mrb (VOR-a) were similar. Never assume anything, continually doublechk your clrncs and use the complete and proper approach and airport names to verify both the pilot and ATC are indeed saying the same thing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR WITH STUDENT ON IFR FLT PLAN IS GIVEN AND ACCEPTS APCH TO WRONG ARPT.

Narrative: THIS FLT WAS A DUAL INST TRAINING FLT CONDUCTED ON AN INST FLT PLAN AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN ATC CLRNC FOR A ROUND ROBIN FLT TO OKV, VA, FOR MULTIPLE APCHS RETURNING TO THE POINT OF ORIGINATION, GAI, MD. THE IFR FLT PLAN FILED INCLUDED OKV, VA, AS AN INTERMEDIATE FIX FOR THE MULTIPLE APCHS AND GAI, MD, AS THE DEST. THE STUDENT AND I RECEIVED THE IFR CLRNC ON THE GND AT GAI WHICH ESTABLISHED OUR INTENTIONS AND MINDSET THAT WE WERE CONDUCTING APCHS AT OKV ARPT. THE INST TRAINING FLT WAS ROUTINE AS WE CONTACTED BWI APCH INITIALLY AND THROUGHOUT THE FLT UP THROUGH CONTACT WITH DULLES APCH. AT THAT POINT, THE STUDENT REQUESTED THE VOR/DME-A APCH TO OKV ARPT WHICH WAS OUR INTENTION. EVIDENTLY THERE WAS A MISCOM AND WE ENDED UP WITH A CLRNC TO CONDUCT THE VOR-A INST APCH TO MARTINSBURG ARPT. AS I CAN BEST RECALL, SPECIFIC REF TO MRB ARPT OR OKV ARPT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE APCH CLRNC, AND I DID NOT CATCH THE DIFFERENCES IN APCH PROCS BTWN THE VOR/DME-A (TO OKV) AND THE VOR-A (TO MARTINSBURG). OUR MINDSET MADE US BELIEVE WHAT WE HEARD WAS WHAT WE WANTED, WHICH WAS A VOR/DME-A INST APCH INTO MRB. I THEN BECAME AWARE OF A POSSIBLE CONFLICT WITH WHAT ATC THOUGHT WE WERE DOING AND WHAT WE WERE ACTUALLY DOING WHEN WE WERE DIRECTED TO CONTACTED MRB CTL TWR INSTEAD OF THE OKV CTAF. AT THAT DIRECTED HDOF FROM DULLES APCH, MY STUDENT CONTACTED MRB TWR AND THEN I TOOK OVER THE COMS VERIFYING OUR MISCOMS. AT THAT POINT WE HAD PASSED OVER MRB VOR AND WERE TRACKING OUTBOUND ON THE VOR/DME-A INST APCH TO OKV ARPT. THE CTL TWR THOUGHT WE WERE CONDUCTING THE VOR-A APCH TO MRB ARPT, AND WHEN WE CLARIFIED OUR INTENTIONS, HAD US REESTABLISH CONTACT WITH DULLES APCH WITH AN AMENDED CLRNC FOR A HDG AND ALT TO FLY AND EVENTUALLY VECTORS FOR THE VOR/DME-A INST APCH TO OKV ARPT. DURING THE ENTIRE MISCOMS EVENT, WE WERE VMC. THIS EVENT DRIVES HOME THE REQUIREMENT FOR COMPLETE AND PROPER COMS PROCS THAT IF NOT FOLLOWED OR STRICTLY SCRUTINIZED BY BOTH CTLR AND PLT, CAN TURN INTO A POTENTIAL PROB. WHEN RECEIVING VFR/IFR ATC CLRNCS, ESPECIALLY ON TRAINING FLTS WHERE THE INSTRUCTOR HAS MANY THINGS TO DIVIDE HIS/HER ATTN ON, COMS AND IFR CLRNCS REQUIRE GREAT VIGILANCE TO PREVENT MISCOMS. THE ADDITIONAL FACTOR THAT ADDED TO OUR MISCOMS WAS OUR MINDSET THAT ATC KNEW WE WERE GOING TO OKV ARPT FOR MULTIPLE APCHS AND THAT THE NAMES OF THE APCHS TO OKV (VOR/DME-A) AND MRB (VOR-A) WERE SIMILAR. NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING, CONTINUALLY DOUBLECHK YOUR CLRNCS AND USE THE COMPLETE AND PROPER APCH AND ARPT NAMES TO VERIFY BOTH THE PLT AND ATC ARE INDEED SAYING THE SAME THING.

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.