Narrative:

Planning for an instrument proficiency check included a cross country from nashua, nh, to north central airport, pawtucket, ri. We filed the suggested tower en route control routing from nashua to gardner then V151 to putnam and then to mimic, the IAF for the localizer for runway 5 at north central. The flight approaching putnam was uneventful. We were then cleared for the putnam transition to the localizer. I interpreted this as the 134 degree radial to mimic at 2500 ft. About 12 mi after passing putnam and established on the 134 degree radial, pvd approach instructed us to make an immediate left turn to a 360 degree heading. They asked us if we were going to mimic and we said we were. Pvd approach informed us that local pilots always flew the 166 degree radial to plisk and then turned inbound on the localizer with no course reversal. According to the chart, plisk is an intermediate fix from the IAF of norwich VOR and the 166 degree radial is the xbearing for an intermediate intersection. There is no routing or altitude listed from putnam to plisk. In addition, it is a 110 degree turn from the 166 degree radial to the localizer. This appeared to be an invented procedure that was not charted. If it is an approved procedure, it should be charted. We could have prevented the problem if we had stated that we understood that we were cleared for the feeder route from putnam to mimic. I had come to believe the 'transition' meant 'feeder route.' I have come to realize that a 'transition' might be a local and unpublished procedure. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he tried to call approach controllers regarding this matter but was unable to get through to them. He believes that they made him feel like he had not followed his clearance when he had almost completed the transition and gave him such a drastic turn to a new heading. However, when they said that local pilots fly another transition which was not charted, he concluded that maybe he did not have the latest chart. After returning to his flight school, he reviewed his chart for the latest and concluded that he did have the latest. He believes that it is not legal to fly an uncharted transitional procedure and if ATC wants a different routing, the pilot should be vectored.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR PLT ON AN INST RATING PROFICIENCY TRAINING FLT CHK WAS CLRED FOR THE TRANSITION TO A PUBLISHED LOC APCH. AFTER ALMOST COMPLETING THE TRANSITION, APCH CTLR INSTRUCTED THEM TO MAKE A 134 DEG TURN AND ADVISED THAT THE LCL PLTS FLY ANOTHER TRANSITION. THE RPTR DID NOT SEE THE OTHER TRANSITION CHARTED, BUT WAS GIVEN VECTORS BACK TO THE LOC BY THE CTLR.

Narrative: PLANNING FOR AN INST PROFICIENCY CHK INCLUDED A XCOUNTRY FROM NASHUA, NH, TO NORTH CENTRAL ARPT, PAWTUCKET, RI. WE FILED THE SUGGESTED TWR ENRTE CTL ROUTING FROM NASHUA TO GARDNER THEN V151 TO PUTNAM AND THEN TO MIMIC, THE IAF FOR THE LOC FOR RWY 5 AT NORTH CENTRAL. THE FLT APCHING PUTNAM WAS UNEVENTFUL. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR THE PUTNAM TRANSITION TO THE LOC. I INTERPED THIS AS THE 134 DEG RADIAL TO MIMIC AT 2500 FT. ABOUT 12 MI AFTER PASSING PUTNAM AND ESTABLISHED ON THE 134 DEG RADIAL, PVD APCH INSTRUCTED US TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE L TURN TO A 360 DEG HDG. THEY ASKED US IF WE WERE GOING TO MIMIC AND WE SAID WE WERE. PVD APCH INFORMED US THAT LCL PLTS ALWAYS FLEW THE 166 DEG RADIAL TO PLISK AND THEN TURNED INBOUND ON THE LOC WITH NO COURSE REVERSAL. ACCORDING TO THE CHART, PLISK IS AN INTERMEDIATE FIX FROM THE IAF OF NORWICH VOR AND THE 166 DEG RADIAL IS THE XBEARING FOR AN INTERMEDIATE INTXN. THERE IS NO ROUTING OR ALT LISTED FROM PUTNAM TO PLISK. IN ADDITION, IT IS A 110 DEG TURN FROM THE 166 DEG RADIAL TO THE LOC. THIS APPEARED TO BE AN INVENTED PROC THAT WAS NOT CHARTED. IF IT IS AN APPROVED PROC, IT SHOULD BE CHARTED. WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE PROB IF WE HAD STATED THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE CLRED FOR THE FEEDER RTE FROM PUTNAM TO MIMIC. I HAD COME TO BELIEVE THE 'TRANSITION' MEANT 'FEEDER RTE.' I HAVE COME TO REALIZE THAT A 'TRANSITION' MIGHT BE A LCL AND UNPUBLISHED PROC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE TRIED TO CALL APCH CTLRS REGARDING THIS MATTER BUT WAS UNABLE TO GET THROUGH TO THEM. HE BELIEVES THAT THEY MADE HIM FEEL LIKE HE HAD NOT FOLLOWED HIS CLRNC WHEN HE HAD ALMOST COMPLETED THE TRANSITION AND GAVE HIM SUCH A DRASTIC TURN TO A NEW HDG. HOWEVER, WHEN THEY SAID THAT LCL PLTS FLY ANOTHER TRANSITION WHICH WAS NOT CHARTED, HE CONCLUDED THAT MAYBE HE DID NOT HAVE THE LATEST CHART. AFTER RETURNING TO HIS FLT SCHOOL, HE REVIEWED HIS CHART FOR THE LATEST AND CONCLUDED THAT HE DID HAVE THE LATEST. HE BELIEVES THAT IT IS NOT LEGAL TO FLY AN UNCHARTED TRANSITIONAL PROC AND IF ATC WANTS A DIFFERENT ROUTING, THE PLT SHOULD BE VECTORED.

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.