Narrative:

The MD80 was level at 5000 ft, encroaching on the final approach course for runway 23L. The SF34 was cleared for the ILS approach from 200 degree heading. The MD80 was assigned a 045 degree heading for the downwind which was correctly received. When situation was observed the MD80 was climbing and the SF34 reported the MD80 in sight. After I questioned the MD80 what heading he was flying and he stated 020 degrees as assigned. After reviewing the voice recordings, it was verified that the MD80 was never given a 020 degree heading, but the 045 degree heading which was read back. The SF34 elected to not join the localizer because he saw the MD80 and thought it best not to. Neither pilot stated they were reacting to a TCASII alert, but both described evasive maneuvers. (The MD80 climbing to 5500 ft and the SF34 not joining the localizer.)

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE ILS RWY 8, BOTH SF34 AND MD80 TAKE EVASIVE ACTION. MD80 TURNED TO WRONG INTERCEPT HDG.

Narrative: THE MD80 WAS LEVEL AT 5000 FT, ENCROACHING ON THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR RWY 23L. THE SF34 WAS CLRED FOR THE ILS APCH FROM 200 DEG HDG. THE MD80 WAS ASSIGNED A 045 DEG HDG FOR THE DOWNWIND WHICH WAS CORRECTLY RECEIVED. WHEN SIT WAS OBSERVED THE MD80 WAS CLBING AND THE SF34 RPTED THE MD80 IN SIGHT. AFTER I QUESTIONED THE MD80 WHAT HDG HE WAS FLYING AND HE STATED 020 DEGS AS ASSIGNED. AFTER REVIEWING THE VOICE RECORDINGS, IT WAS VERIFIED THAT THE MD80 WAS NEVER GIVEN A 020 DEG HDG, BUT THE 045 DEG HDG WHICH WAS READ BACK. THE SF34 ELECTED TO NOT JOIN THE LOC BECAUSE HE SAW THE MD80 AND THOUGHT IT BEST NOT TO. NEITHER PLT STATED THEY WERE REACTING TO A TCASII ALERT, BUT BOTH DESCRIBED EVASIVE MANEUVERS. (THE MD80 CLBING TO 5500 FT AND THE SF34 NOT JOINING THE LOC.)

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.