Narrative:

Was given an IFR clearance to lgb which stated 'fly runway heading, vectors for victor 16, thermal, then as filed.' immediately after takeoff, tower instructed 'turn left heading XXX.' a few seconds later, tower said 'turn left heading YYY, vectors for victor 16' (I believe it was victor 16, due west, I don't have my charts with me at the moment), 'contact departure on XXX.xx.' while changing to departure frequency, I noticed I was intercepting victor 16. I radioed 'departure control, centurion X is with you at 3000 ft, turning onto V16.' the departure controller blew up at me: 'you were supposed to fly a heading (I think it was 190 or 210 degrees).' I replied 'I was given vectors for victor 16 and I was now intercepting but would be glad to continue on the previously assigned heading.' he then checked back with the tower who assigned the clearance and called me back to say 'you were instructed to fly heading 210 degrees vectors for V16, not vectors to intercept V16.' the FAA will probably say I was wrong. But here's my point: why would any controller choose to give ambiguous or easily misunderstood instructions? If my clearance had been 'turn left heading 210 degrees' that is clear, unambiguous, easily understood, and doesn't create any improper expectations. It also sets up the expectation of another vector. Whereas, 'turn left to 210 degrees vectors for V16' sounds too much like 'vector to intercept V16.' I don't need to know the eventual destination of the vector. I need to know what comes next, and I thought that's what he was telling me.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: P50 CTLR CHALLENGES C210 PLT WHEN PLT TURNS ON COURSE ON V16.

Narrative: WAS GIVEN AN IFR CLRNC TO LGB WHICH STATED 'FLY RWY HDG, VECTORS FOR VICTOR 16, THERMAL, THEN AS FILED.' IMMEDIATELY AFTER TKOF, TWR INSTRUCTED 'TURN L HDG XXX.' A FEW SECONDS LATER, TWR SAID 'TURN L HDG YYY, VECTORS FOR VICTOR 16' (I BELIEVE IT WAS VICTOR 16, DUE W, I DON'T HAVE MY CHARTS WITH ME AT THE MOMENT), 'CONTACT DEP ON XXX.XX.' WHILE CHANGING TO DEP FREQ, I NOTICED I WAS INTERCEPTING VICTOR 16. I RADIOED 'DEP CTL, CENTURION X IS WITH YOU AT 3000 FT, TURNING ONTO V16.' THE DEP CTLR BLEW UP AT ME: 'YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO FLY A HDG (I THINK IT WAS 190 OR 210 DEGS).' I REPLIED 'I WAS GIVEN VECTORS FOR VICTOR 16 AND I WAS NOW INTERCEPTING BUT WOULD BE GLAD TO CONTINUE ON THE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED HDG.' HE THEN CHKED BACK WITH THE TWR WHO ASSIGNED THE CLRNC AND CALLED ME BACK TO SAY 'YOU WERE INSTRUCTED TO FLY HDG 210 DEGS VECTORS FOR V16, NOT VECTORS TO INTERCEPT V16.' THE FAA WILL PROBABLY SAY I WAS WRONG. BUT HERE'S MY POINT: WHY WOULD ANY CTLR CHOOSE TO GIVE AMBIGUOUS OR EASILY MISUNDERSTOOD INSTRUCTIONS? IF MY CLRNC HAD BEEN 'TURN L HDG 210 DEGS' THAT IS CLR, UNAMBIGUOUS, EASILY UNDERSTOOD, AND DOESN'T CREATE ANY IMPROPER EXPECTATIONS. IT ALSO SETS UP THE EXPECTATION OF ANOTHER VECTOR. WHEREAS, 'TURN L TO 210 DEGS VECTORS FOR V16' SOUNDS TOO MUCH LIKE 'VECTOR TO INTERCEPT V16.' I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE EVENTUAL DEST OF THE VECTOR. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT COMES NEXT, AND I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT HE WAS TELLING ME.

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.