Narrative:

After a radar controled transition from pdx class C airspace into class east, a call was made to troutdale tower on 120.9. Location and intent to land was given to ttd. Ttd responded with clearance for a right downwind approach to runway 25. While on the 45 degrees for runway 25, tower was contacted with amended request. Myself as the PIC requested 'after landing, requesting a touch and go.' tower informed after touch and go, depart north at or below 1500 ft. My understanding at that time was that I was cleared for 2 touch and goes. After departing the first landing, I entered a right downwind pattern for my second touch and go, while the tower delivers a clearance for another aircraft. On final it was discovered that the other aircraft was a conflict for the same runway, and I executed a go around. Looking back, I should have stated my intentions more clearly. However, the tower operator should have noted the conflict visually. I should have stated '2 touch and goes' or with the option, consulting with the aim pilot/controller glossary.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC. CESSNA 150 SOLO STUDENT FOUND THAT TWR MISUNDERSTOOD HIS REQUEST FOR 2 TOUCH AND GO LNDGS AND WAS IN CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER ACFT PREVIOUSLY CLRED TO LAND ON THE SAME RWY.

Narrative: AFTER A RADAR CTLED TRANSITION FROM PDX CLASS C AIRSPACE INTO CLASS E, A CALL WAS MADE TO TROUTDALE TWR ON 120.9. LOCATION AND INTENT TO LAND WAS GIVEN TO TTD. TTD RESPONDED WITH CLRNC FOR A R DOWNWIND APCH TO RWY 25. WHILE ON THE 45 DEGS FOR RWY 25, TWR WAS CONTACTED WITH AMENDED REQUEST. MYSELF AS THE PIC REQUESTED 'AFTER LNDG, REQUESTING A TOUCH AND GO.' TWR INFORMED AFTER TOUCH AND GO, DEPART N AT OR BELOW 1500 FT. MY UNDERSTANDING AT THAT TIME WAS THAT I WAS CLRED FOR 2 TOUCH AND GOES. AFTER DEPARTING THE FIRST LNDG, I ENTERED A R DOWNWIND PATTERN FOR MY SECOND TOUCH AND GO, WHILE THE TWR DELIVERS A CLRNC FOR ANOTHER ACFT. ON FINAL IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE OTHER ACFT WAS A CONFLICT FOR THE SAME RWY, AND I EXECUTED A GAR. LOOKING BACK, I SHOULD HAVE STATED MY INTENTIONS MORE CLRLY. HOWEVER, THE TWR OPERATOR SHOULD HAVE NOTED THE CONFLICT VISUALLY. I SHOULD HAVE STATED '2 TOUCH AND GOES' OR WITH THE OPTION, CONSULTING WITH THE AIM PLT/CTLR GLOSSARY.

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.