Narrative:

While arriving at mia, aircraft was vectored by approach control, and was held higher than normal (8000 ft MSL) while on downwind leg to runway 9L. Aircraft was cleared to descend to 4000 ft, while abeam the approach end of runway 9L. Aircraft was then vectored to final approach and cleared for the approach to runway 9L. Aircraft was already in landing confign, still too high and too fast for the approach at the distance we were. Approach control advised us that we were following small commuter 4 mi ahead of us. I requested a left 360 (three sixty) turn for altitude loss. Approach replied roger cleared left 360 (three six zero) and I read back, 'roger, left 360 (three sixty).' we began our left 360 degree turn and while passing through 280 degrees, approach asked us about our heading. I replied, 'passing through 280 degrees.' he then stated that he wanted us on a heading of 360 degrees, and to expedite back to a heading of 360 degrees, which we did. We were then vectored back for the runway 9L approach with no further incident. In my opinion the cause of the problem was that the initial request, ATC instructions and readback were not clear enough. There is too much room for interpretation when proper phraseology is not used. Left 360 degrees does not necessarily mean a left 360 degree turn, and cleared left 360 does not necessarily mean a heading of 360 degrees. Heading clrncs should be stated clearly as heading 360 degrees.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DC8F FLC ASSUMED A 360 CLRNC WAS FOR A TURN, RATHER THAN A HDG ON APCH TO MIA.

Narrative: WHILE ARRIVING AT MIA, ACFT WAS VECTORED BY APCH CTL, AND WAS HELD HIGHER THAN NORMAL (8000 FT MSL) WHILE ON DOWNWIND LEG TO RWY 9L. ACFT WAS CLRED TO DSND TO 4000 FT, WHILE ABEAM THE APCH END OF RWY 9L. ACFT WAS THEN VECTORED TO FINAL APCH AND CLRED FOR THE APCH TO RWY 9L. ACFT WAS ALREADY IN LNDG CONFIGN, STILL TOO HIGH AND TOO FAST FOR THE APCH AT THE DISTANCE WE WERE. APCH CTL ADVISED US THAT WE WERE FOLLOWING SMALL COMMUTER 4 MI AHEAD OF US. I REQUESTED A L 360 (THREE SIXTY) TURN FOR ALT LOSS. APCH REPLIED ROGER CLRED L 360 (THREE SIX ZERO) AND I READ BACK, 'ROGER, L 360 (THREE SIXTY).' WE BEGAN OUR L 360 DEG TURN AND WHILE PASSING THROUGH 280 DEGS, APCH ASKED US ABOUT OUR HDG. I REPLIED, 'PASSING THROUGH 280 DEGS.' HE THEN STATED THAT HE WANTED US ON A HDG OF 360 DEGS, AND TO EXPEDITE BACK TO A HDG OF 360 DEGS, WHICH WE DID. WE WERE THEN VECTORED BACK FOR THE RWY 9L APCH WITH NO FURTHER INCIDENT. IN MY OPINION THE CAUSE OF THE PROB WAS THAT THE INITIAL REQUEST, ATC INSTRUCTIONS AND READBACK WERE NOT CLR ENOUGH. THERE IS TOO MUCH ROOM FOR INTERP WHEN PROPER PHRASEOLOGY IS NOT USED. L 360 DEGS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A L 360 DEG TURN, AND CLRED L 360 DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A HDG OF 360 DEGS. HDG CLRNCS SHOULD BE STATED CLRLY AS HDG 360 DEGS.

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.