Narrative:

I was assigned to function as the PF second-in-command during a maintenance test flight on our company corporate jet. The purpose of this flight was to certify new GPS/FMS avionics. Due to the nature and complexity of the functional test requirements, an avionics expert/technician occupied the jump seat to assist the certification process, which included involved and timely checklist procedures to be performed during critical phases of 2 non-precision approachs. The PIC would act as the PNF to facilitate this certification process due to his enhanced familiarity with the new equipment. We also determined that, to provide optimum levels of safety and situational awareness, I would concentrate on flying, watch for traffic, and navigation per the specified directions from the PIC as required for the certification process and consistent with ATC clrncs and traffic/safety considerations. During a GPS/NDB approach to runway 09 at swf, our plan was to fly to minimums, then execute the published map on autoplt as our final test for this flight. A step-by-step functional check was necessary during certain critical phases of the map which ultimately required the PNF to literally direct me as PF to perform each segment of this approach. After we contacted the tower, and close to short final, the tower issued new map procedures which I recall as follows: 'after the missed, proceed north of the airport, circle to land runway 27.' some confusion ensued, as we confirmed our intentions not to land but to continue on the map, at which time I recall the controller said to 'just continue north of the airport after the missed.' I then queried the PIC regards the published missed complying with this instruction, and was told the turn proceeded north of the field. When we initiated the missed, the controller seemed irritated and annoyed that we did not comply with his clearance in a timely or appropriate manner. I believe some confusion existed both on the controller's behalf as well as ours in this situation. The controller was not specific as to what heading to fly to remain north of the airport after the map. We believed the published missed complied by proceeding on a generally nebound heading which kept the aircraft 'north of the airport.' it's good procedure to always confirm and specify a vague clearance in any situation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CPR FLC FAILED TO CLARIFY THE EXPECTED MAP CLRNC. THE CLRNC WAS VERY VAGUE. POOR PHRASEOLOGY.

Narrative: I WAS ASSIGNED TO FUNCTION AS THE PF SECOND-IN-COMMAND DURING A MAINT TEST FLT ON OUR COMPANY CORPORATE JET. THE PURPOSE OF THIS FLT WAS TO CERTIFY NEW GPS/FMS AVIONICS. DUE TO THE NATURE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE FUNCTIONAL TEST REQUIREMENTS, AN AVIONICS EXPERT/TECHNICIAN OCCUPIED THE JUMP SEAT TO ASSIST THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDED INVOLVED AND TIMELY CHKLIST PROCS TO BE PERFORMED DURING CRITICAL PHASES OF 2 NON-PRECISION APCHS. THE PIC WOULD ACT AS THE PNF TO FACILITATE THIS CERTIFICATION PROCESS DUE TO HIS ENHANCED FAMILIARITY WITH THE NEW EQUIP. WE ALSO DETERMINED THAT, TO PROVIDE OPTIMUM LEVELS OF SAFETY AND SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, I WOULD CONCENTRATE ON FLYING, WATCH FOR TFC, AND NAV PER THE SPECIFIED DIRECTIONS FROM THE PIC AS REQUIRED FOR THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS AND CONSISTENT WITH ATC CLRNCS AND TFC/SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS. DURING A GPS/NDB APCH TO RWY 09 AT SWF, OUR PLAN WAS TO FLY TO MINIMUMS, THEN EXECUTE THE PUBLISHED MAP ON AUTOPLT AS OUR FINAL TEST FOR THIS FLT. A STEP-BY-STEP FUNCTIONAL CHK WAS NECESSARY DURING CERTAIN CRITICAL PHASES OF THE MAP WHICH ULTIMATELY REQUIRED THE PNF TO LITERALLY DIRECT ME AS PF TO PERFORM EACH SEGMENT OF THIS APCH. AFTER WE CONTACTED THE TWR, AND CLOSE TO SHORT FINAL, THE TWR ISSUED NEW MAP PROCS WHICH I RECALL AS FOLLOWS: 'AFTER THE MISSED, PROCEED N OF THE ARPT, CIRCLE TO LAND RWY 27.' SOME CONFUSION ENSUED, AS WE CONFIRMED OUR INTENTIONS NOT TO LAND BUT TO CONTINUE ON THE MAP, AT WHICH TIME I RECALL THE CTLR SAID TO 'JUST CONTINUE N OF THE ARPT AFTER THE MISSED.' I THEN QUERIED THE PIC REGARDS THE PUBLISHED MISSED COMPLYING WITH THIS INSTRUCTION, AND WAS TOLD THE TURN PROCEEDED N OF THE FIELD. WHEN WE INITIATED THE MISSED, THE CTLR SEEMED IRRITATED AND ANNOYED THAT WE DID NOT COMPLY WITH HIS CLRNC IN A TIMELY OR APPROPRIATE MANNER. I BELIEVE SOME CONFUSION EXISTED BOTH ON THE CTLR'S BEHALF AS WELL AS OURS IN THIS SIT. THE CTLR WAS NOT SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT HDG TO FLY TO REMAIN N OF THE ARPT AFTER THE MAP. WE BELIEVED THE PUBLISHED MISSED COMPLIED BY PROCEEDING ON A GENERALLY NEBOUND HDG WHICH KEPT THE ACFT 'N OF THE ARPT.' IT'S GOOD PROC TO ALWAYS CONFIRM AND SPECIFY A VAGUE CLRNC IN ANY SIT.

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.