Narrative:

On approach to roc, both the copilot and I had the beacon in sight at approximately 20 mi out. We were receiving vectors for the visual approach to runway 4. I, as the PNF, tuned and idented the ILS for runway 4. At approximately 15 mi out we thought we had the runway in sight, and the localizer confirmed what we saw. We called the runway in sight and were cleared for a visual to runway 4. At approximately 10 mi out we realized we were lined up on a highway with street lights on both sides. I asked the controller to recommend a heading. He said fly heading 140 degrees until runway 4 is in sight. The copilot turned to 140 degrees and I quickly found runway 4. My eyes were completely outside the cockpit. I looked inside and saw that the copilot was no longer on heading 140 degrees. As I was reaching for the push-to-talk button to call runway 4 in sight, the controller asked if we were still on 140 degrees. I called the field in sight, and began scolding the copilot for not flying heading 140 degrees. As I was scolding the copilot, the controller began scolding us for not staying on heading. In a postflt crew debrief, the copilot thought I had asked the controller to 'suggest' a heading, and I also thought that is what I had asked for. She also assumed we were still cleared for the visual approach. There was a breakdown in communication between the 3 people involved (captain, copilot, controller). When I asked him to suggest a heading, I should have clarified if it was a vector or a suggestion, also, were we still cleared for the visual or was that rescinded when we realized we were lined up on a highway? The highway that close to the runway, along with the erroneous localizer signals were major factors.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CARGO FLT ON APCH ON VECTORS TO FINAL APCH HAS INCORRECT LOC INFO AND IS LINED UP WITH A HWY. THEY REQUEST HDG FROM TWR BUT MISCOM OCCURS AND CTLR CORRECTS THEIR HDG.

Narrative: ON APCH TO ROC, BOTH THE COPLT AND I HAD THE BEACON IN SIGHT AT APPROX 20 MI OUT. WE WERE RECEIVING VECTORS FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 4. I, AS THE PNF, TUNED AND IDENTED THE ILS FOR RWY 4. AT APPROX 15 MI OUT WE THOUGHT WE HAD THE RWY IN SIGHT, AND THE LOC CONFIRMED WHAT WE SAW. WE CALLED THE RWY IN SIGHT AND WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 4. AT APPROX 10 MI OUT WE REALIZED WE WERE LINED UP ON A HWY WITH STREET LIGHTS ON BOTH SIDES. I ASKED THE CTLR TO RECOMMEND A HDG. HE SAID FLY HDG 140 DEGS UNTIL RWY 4 IS IN SIGHT. THE COPLT TURNED TO 140 DEGS AND I QUICKLY FOUND RWY 4. MY EYES WERE COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE COCKPIT. I LOOKED INSIDE AND SAW THAT THE COPLT WAS NO LONGER ON HDG 140 DEGS. AS I WAS REACHING FOR THE PUSH-TO-TALK BUTTON TO CALL RWY 4 IN SIGHT, THE CTLR ASKED IF WE WERE STILL ON 140 DEGS. I CALLED THE FIELD IN SIGHT, AND BEGAN SCOLDING THE COPLT FOR NOT FLYING HDG 140 DEGS. AS I WAS SCOLDING THE COPLT, THE CTLR BEGAN SCOLDING US FOR NOT STAYING ON HDG. IN A POSTFLT CREW DEBRIEF, THE COPLT THOUGHT I HAD ASKED THE CTLR TO 'SUGGEST' A HDG, AND I ALSO THOUGHT THAT IS WHAT I HAD ASKED FOR. SHE ALSO ASSUMED WE WERE STILL CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH. THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN COM BTWN THE 3 PEOPLE INVOLVED (CAPT, COPLT, CTLR). WHEN I ASKED HIM TO SUGGEST A HDG, I SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED IF IT WAS A VECTOR OR A SUGGESTION, ALSO, WERE WE STILL CLRED FOR THE VISUAL OR WAS THAT RESCINDED WHEN WE REALIZED WE WERE LINED UP ON A HWY? THE HWY THAT CLOSE TO THE RWY, ALONG WITH THE ERRONEOUS LOC SIGNALS WERE MAJOR FACTORS.

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.