Narrative:

On back course approach to runway 13, ZSE advised to fly published missed approach. After handoff to tower, crew asked if left turn northbound could be executed if approach aborted early. Tower indicated affirmative. Approximately 2 mi short of runway, crew asked if left turn northbound was approved. Tower said 'affirmative, contact seattle 125.8.' when on with ZSE, center asked why we weren't on published missed approach. Crew reported that left turn was approved by the tower. Crew wanted to maintain IFR, receive vectors toward final approach to have company aircraft to parallel for continuation of test flight. ZSE informed us to maintain VFR. Crew complied. After completing test flight, crew informed ZSE that it was ready to return to sle visually. The first officer said that we could cancel IFR. We were not really sure whether our IFR flight plan was still active. Landing was made at sle uneventfully. After landing, sle tower told us that ZSE would like us to call. We were told by the center that the tower had no authority/authorized to authorize our turn and chastised us for turning. Our reply was that if controller approved, we assume it's ok. Communications between tower and approach center are not our responsibility. Discussion ensued about differences between center and tower and whether flight was VFR or IFR. Main point is that pilots assume controller's clrncs are ok. No questions asked. Communication between local towers and center controllers is not always good. Local tower should be told what is expected by center to avoid misunderstanding.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727 FLC ON A TEST FLT FLYING A BACK COURSE APCH REQUEST A L TURN FOR THE MISSED APCH AND IT IS APPROVED BY TWR. WHEN CHKING IN WITH CTR THEY ARE QUESTIONED ABOUT THE L TURNOUT. ON LNDG THEY ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT CTR, AT WHICH TIME THEY ARE CHASTISED BY THE CTLR FOR NOT MAKING THE STANDARD MISSED APCH PROC. HE INFORMED THEM THAT THE TWR HAS NO AUTH TO ISSUE SUCH A TURN.

Narrative: ON BACK COURSE APCH TO RWY 13, ZSE ADVISED TO FLY PUBLISHED MISSED APCH. AFTER HDOF TO TWR, CREW ASKED IF L TURN NBOUND COULD BE EXECUTED IF APCH ABORTED EARLY. TWR INDICATED AFFIRMATIVE. APPROX 2 MI SHORT OF RWY, CREW ASKED IF L TURN NBOUND WAS APPROVED. TWR SAID 'AFFIRMATIVE, CONTACT SEATTLE 125.8.' WHEN ON WITH ZSE, CTR ASKED WHY WE WEREN'T ON PUBLISHED MISSED APCH. CREW RPTED THAT L TURN WAS APPROVED BY THE TWR. CREW WANTED TO MAINTAIN IFR, RECEIVE VECTORS TOWARD FINAL APCH TO HAVE COMPANY ACFT TO PARALLEL FOR CONTINUATION OF TEST FLT. ZSE INFORMED US TO MAINTAIN VFR. CREW COMPLIED. AFTER COMPLETING TEST FLT, CREW INFORMED ZSE THAT IT WAS READY TO RETURN TO SLE VISUALLY. THE FO SAID THAT WE COULD CANCEL IFR. WE WERE NOT REALLY SURE WHETHER OUR IFR FLT PLAN WAS STILL ACTIVE. LNDG WAS MADE AT SLE UNEVENTFULLY. AFTER LNDG, SLE TWR TOLD US THAT ZSE WOULD LIKE US TO CALL. WE WERE TOLD BY THE CTR THAT THE TWR HAD NO AUTH TO AUTHORIZE OUR TURN AND CHASTISED US FOR TURNING. OUR REPLY WAS THAT IF CTLR APPROVED, WE ASSUME IT'S OK. COMS BTWN TWR AND APCH CTR ARE NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY. DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT DIFFERENCES BTWN CTR AND TWR AND WHETHER FLT WAS VFR OR IFR. MAIN POINT IS THAT PLTS ASSUME CTLR'S CLRNCS ARE OK. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. COM BTWN LCL TWRS AND CTR CTLRS IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD. LCL TWR SHOULD BE TOLD WHAT IS EXPECTED BY CTR TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDING.

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.