Narrative:

Upon contacting pit approach control, I was told to expect 'simultaneous ILS runway 28R approach.' a search of commercial chart apches revealed an 'ILS runway 28R' and a 'converging ILS runway 28R,' but no 'simultaneous ILS runway 28R approach.' I explained to the controller that I could accept an 'ILS runway 28R' approach, but not a 'simultaneous ILS runway 28R approach' as I did not carry an approach labeled as such. I could accept an 'ILS runway 28R' approach with simultaneous apches being conducted to runway 28L, but this was not offered. Instead, the controller informed me I would be vectored away temporarily 'if I needed the runway to myself.' I accepted the vectors, and (after a short delay) an ILS runway 28R approach to an uneventful landing. Upon landing I was told to contact ATC regarding this event. Basically, this event centers around the controller's use of the word 'simultaneous' in conjunction with the name of the approach. Controllers are usually very specific and precise in using the exact name of an approach (for example, when a glide slope transmitter is out of service, aircraft are still given clearance for an 'ILS runway xx' approach, even though it clearly must be flown as a localizer approach.) also, the fact that ILS apches were being flown to the parallel runway (28L) was in the ATIS, and a note in the runway 28R approach stated that simultaneous apches were permitted. Finally, the controller's comment regarding my needing 'the runway to myself' did nothing to clarify the situation. It further reinforced my belief that the controller was attempting to clear me for a procedure I was neither equipped nor trained for.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING NIGHT IMC, IN SNOW, RAIN AND TURB, A B737-200 CAPT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PIT TRACON CTLR'S USE OF THE PHRASE, 'EXPECT THE SIMULTANEOUS ILS RWY 28R APCH.' THE CAPT COULD ONLY FIND THE 'ILS RWY 28R' AND 'CONVERGING ILS RWY 28R' APCH PLATES AND WHEN HE STATED SUCH, THE CTLR VECTORED HIM AWAY FROM THE ARPT.

Narrative: UPON CONTACTING PIT APCH CTL, I WAS TOLD TO EXPECT 'SIMULTANEOUS ILS RWY 28R APCH.' A SEARCH OF COMMERCIAL CHART APCHES REVEALED AN 'ILS RWY 28R' AND A 'CONVERGING ILS RWY 28R,' BUT NO 'SIMULTANEOUS ILS RWY 28R APCH.' I EXPLAINED TO THE CTLR THAT I COULD ACCEPT AN 'ILS RWY 28R' APCH, BUT NOT A 'SIMULTANEOUS ILS RWY 28R APCH' AS I DID NOT CARRY AN APCH LABELED AS SUCH. I COULD ACCEPT AN 'ILS RWY 28R' APCH WITH SIMULTANEOUS APCHES BEING CONDUCTED TO RWY 28L, BUT THIS WAS NOT OFFERED. INSTEAD, THE CTLR INFORMED ME I WOULD BE VECTORED AWAY TEMPORARILY 'IF I NEEDED THE RWY TO MYSELF.' I ACCEPTED THE VECTORS, AND (AFTER A SHORT DELAY) AN ILS RWY 28R APCH TO AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. UPON LNDG I WAS TOLD TO CONTACT ATC REGARDING THIS EVENT. BASICALLY, THIS EVENT CENTERS AROUND THE CTLR'S USE OF THE WORD 'SIMULTANEOUS' IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NAME OF THE APCH. CTLRS ARE USUALLY VERY SPECIFIC AND PRECISE IN USING THE EXACT NAME OF AN APCH (FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A GLIDE SLOPE TRANSMITTER IS OUT OF SVC, ACFT ARE STILL GIVEN CLRNC FOR AN 'ILS RWY XX' APCH, EVEN THOUGH IT CLRLY MUST BE FLOWN AS A LOC APCH.) ALSO, THE FACT THAT ILS APCHES WERE BEING FLOWN TO THE PARALLEL RWY (28L) WAS IN THE ATIS, AND A NOTE IN THE RWY 28R APCH STATED THAT SIMULTANEOUS APCHES WERE PERMITTED. FINALLY, THE CTLR'S COMMENT REGARDING MY NEEDING 'THE RWY TO MYSELF' DID NOTHING TO CLARIFY THE SITUATION. IT FURTHER REINFORCED MY BELIEF THAT THE CTLR WAS ATTEMPTING TO CLR ME FOR A PROC I WAS NEITHER EQUIPPED NOR TRAINED FOR.

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.