Narrative:

I am an mei giving instruction to an instrument applicant. We were doing a partial panel VOR approach using the compass and obs for navigation. ZMA gave us our vector to intercept the final approach course, 'fly heading 140 degrees, intercept the final approach course (300 degree radial).' the student pilot did as requested, but went through the 300 degree radial. I advised the student to turn back to approximately a 100 degree heading to reintercept the course. (At no point were we were full-scale defection.) while on a heading of 100 degrees, ATC advised, 'turn right to 090 degrees and reintercept the course for spacing.' at this point, we were still to the right of course, so I thought that ATC had made an error and meant turn left to 090 degrees to intercept the 300 degree radial. The student did this (after I advised him to do so) and we did in fact reintercept the course. I then asked ATC if it was ok to proceed inbound on the 300 degree radial. At this point, the controller became understandably upset because he wanted us to basically make a right 360 degree turn. He advised that we were about to break the 2 mi spacing requirement for IFR traffic and that I had deviated from an ATC instruction. At this point, I apologized for the error I had made and promptly executed the right turn, back to 090 degrees, and intercepted the course. The rest of the approach was fine. Looking back, I should have not assumed the ATC operator made a mistake and should have asked him to clarify his instructions. I do feel that this miscom could have been avoided if he would have said 'make a right 360 degree turn to 090 degrees or a right 330 degree turn to 090 degrees and reintercept the final approach course.' the latter phraseology seems to be the more common one that I have been given in similar sits.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA44 EXECUTES A R 360 DEG TURN AFTER ORIGINALLY MISINTERPING ZMA SEQUENCING CLRNC.

Narrative: I AM AN MEI GIVING INSTRUCTION TO AN INST APPLICANT. WE WERE DOING A PARTIAL PANEL VOR APCH USING THE COMPASS AND OBS FOR NAV. ZMA GAVE US OUR VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE, 'FLY HDG 140 DEGS, INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE (300 DEG RADIAL).' THE STUDENT PLT DID AS REQUESTED, BUT WENT THROUGH THE 300 DEG RADIAL. I ADVISED THE STUDENT TO TURN BACK TO APPROX A 100 DEG HDG TO REINTERCEPT THE COURSE. (AT NO POINT WERE WE WERE FULL-SCALE DEFECTION.) WHILE ON A HDG OF 100 DEGS, ATC ADVISED, 'TURN R TO 090 DEGS AND REINTERCEPT THE COURSE FOR SPACING.' AT THIS POINT, WE WERE STILL TO THE R OF COURSE, SO I THOUGHT THAT ATC HAD MADE AN ERROR AND MEANT TURN L TO 090 DEGS TO INTERCEPT THE 300 DEG RADIAL. THE STUDENT DID THIS (AFTER I ADVISED HIM TO DO SO) AND WE DID IN FACT REINTERCEPT THE COURSE. I THEN ASKED ATC IF IT WAS OK TO PROCEED INBOUND ON THE 300 DEG RADIAL. AT THIS POINT, THE CTLR BECAME UNDERSTANDABLY UPSET BECAUSE HE WANTED US TO BASICALLY MAKE A R 360 DEG TURN. HE ADVISED THAT WE WERE ABOUT TO BREAK THE 2 MI SPACING REQUIREMENT FOR IFR TFC AND THAT I HAD DEVIATED FROM AN ATC INSTRUCTION. AT THIS POINT, I APOLOGIZED FOR THE ERROR I HAD MADE AND PROMPTLY EXECUTED THE R TURN, BACK TO 090 DEGS, AND INTERCEPTED THE COURSE. THE REST OF THE APCH WAS FINE. LOOKING BACK, I SHOULD HAVE NOT ASSUMED THE ATC OPERATOR MADE A MISTAKE AND SHOULD HAVE ASKED HIM TO CLARIFY HIS INSTRUCTIONS. I DO FEEL THAT THIS MISCOM COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF HE WOULD HAVE SAID 'MAKE A R 360 DEG TURN TO 090 DEGS OR A R 330 DEG TURN TO 090 DEGS AND REINTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE.' THE LATTER PHRASEOLOGY SEEMS TO BE THE MORE COMMON ONE THAT I HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN SIMILAR SITS.

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.