<< >> NASA ASRS Report 396650, March 1998

Apparent misunderstanding by the second controller that reporter was on a vector heading rather than a heading to intercept the airway.

Attributes
ACN	396650
Time
Date	199803
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : bwi
State Reference	MD
Altitude	msl bound lower : 17000 msl bound upper : 17000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zdc tower : cvg
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors enroute airway : zdc
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 15000 flight time type : 600
ASRS Report	396650
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

During climb out after takeoff from bwi we received a clearance to turn to 350 degree heading and intercept J518 along with a frequency change and a handoff to a new controller. After checking in with the new controller, the new controller asked what our heading was. We replied 350 degrees to intercept the airway. The controller responded, make it 360 degrees. We read back 360 degrees and turned to 360 degrees. A few mins later we turned to intercept J518 and a short time thereafter the controller asked what our heading was. We said we were turning west to intercept the airway. The controller then cleared us back to a 360 degree heading and said he had not wanted us to intercept J518 but rather had wanted us to maintain our original 360 degree heading. I don't believe there was any traffic conflict but somewhere there was a miscom. We believed we were on a 360 degree heading to intercept J518 and the controller thought we were simply on a 360 degree heading and not going to intercept the airway. We did not think to clarify the clearance because we believed we were doing exactly what the controller had cleared us to do.

Related reports:

• C206 pilot reports apparent misunderstanding with rap tower ...

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.37000feet.com

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APPARENT MISUNDERSTANDING BY THE SECOND CTLR THAT RPTR WAS ON A VECTOR HDG RATHER THAN A HDG TO INTERCEPT THE AIRWAY.

Narrative: DURING CLBOUT AFTER TKOF FROM BWI WE RECEIVED A CLRNC TO TURN TO 350 DEG HDG AND INTERCEPT J518 ALONG WITH A FREQ CHANGE AND A HDOF TO A NEW CTLR. AFTER CHKING IN WITH THE NEW CTLR, THE NEW CTLR ASKED WHAT OUR HDG WAS. WE REPLIED 350 DEGS TO INTERCEPT THE AIRWAY. THE CTLR RESPONDED, MAKE IT 360 DEGS. WE READ BACK 360 DEGS AND TURNED TO 360 DEGS. A FEW MINS LATER WE TURNED TO INTERCEPT J518 AND A SHORT TIME THEREAFTER THE CTLR ASKED WHAT OUR HDG WAS. WE SAID WE WERE TURNING W TO INTERCEPT THE AIRWAY. THE CTLR THEN CLRED US BACK TO A 360 DEG HDG AND SAID HE HAD NOT WANTED US TO INTERCEPT J518 BUT RATHER HAD WANTED US TO MAINTAIN OUR ORIGINAL 360 DEG HDG. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY TFC CONFLICT BUT SOMEWHERE THERE WAS A MISCOM. WE BELIEVED WE WERE ON A 360 DEG HDG TO INTERCEPT J518 AND THE CTLR THOUGHT WE WERE SIMPLY ON A 360 DEG HDG AND NOT GOING TO INTERCEPT THE AIRWAY. WE DID NOT THINK TO CLARIFY THE CLRNC BECAUSE WE BELIEVED WE WERE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THE CTLR HAD CLRED US TO DO.

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.