IFR B190 inbound to iad is in disagreement with ATC regarding assigned heading.

Attributes
ACN	582580
Time
Date	200305
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : iad.airport
State Reference	VA
Altitude	msl single value : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : pct.tracon
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Beech 1900
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 60 flight time total : 3760 flight time type : 1100
ASRS Report	582580
Person 2
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 35 flight time total : 8450 flight time type : 120
ASRS Report	582935
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Ambiguous

Narrative:

We were on an assigned route of caras 4000 ft depart caras 190 expect runway 1R. The controller handed us off to approach. We checked in with assigned altitude. The controller gave us a heading of 340 degrees expect runway 1L. I read back the clearance 340 degrees, 4000 ft and said your changing my runway? There was no reply. Asked first officer if he heard the same thing and he repeated the same. We proceeded to the assigned heading. We knew this would take us over the top of the airport. 1 min later the controller asked 'where are you going?' I replied '340 degrees assigned.' he said 'you are going the wrong way, you were listening to another call sign -- listen up!' I replied 'no I did not, this is what we were assigned.' there was a 30 second delay and we had a new controller who vectored us around for runway 1R dulles with no problems. Supplemental information from acn 582935: (new voice) we know it is new because it is not male but a female controller -- who crisply and professionally vectors us around to finally intercept the runway 1R ILS at dulles. Land uneventfully. My point on the safety of flight issue is, as a former military flyer we were taught, and I firmly believe it is a good axiom and applies in this instance: 'while in the air, work as a team, settle any differences on the ground.' without hearing the tapes of what transpired in the communication, the PIC and I could have heard a wrong call sign. The percentages of this are low, but possible. The controller could have meant another aircraft but used our call sign -- he's human also. However, an aircraft in IMC conditions, over a busy metropolitan airport is not a place to be assigning instant blame. Calmly get us on the ground and call on the telephone if there is a problem to solve. I did not feel this was a totally unsafe incident, the TCASII showed no conflicting traffic in this particular case, but there could have been a problem if conditions were different.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IFR B190 INBOUND TO IAD IS IN DISAGREEMENT WITH ATC REGARDING ASSIGNED HEADING.

Narrative: WE WERE ON AN ASSIGNED RTE OF CARAS 4000 FT DEPART CARAS 190 EXPECT RWY 1R. THE CTLR HANDED US OFF TO APCH. WE CHKED IN WITH ASSIGNED ALT. THE CTLR GAVE US A HEADING OF 340 DEGS EXPECT RWY 1L. I READ BACK THE CLRNC 340 DEGS, 4000 FT AND SAID YOUR CHANGING MY RWY? THERE WAS NO REPLY. ASKED FO IF HE HEARD THE SAME THING AND HE REPEATED THE SAME. WE PROCEEDED TO THE ASSIGNED HEADING. WE KNEW THIS WOULD TAKE US OVER THE TOP OF THE ARPT. 1 MIN LATER THE CTLR ASKED 'WHERE ARE YOU GOING?' I REPLIED '340 DEGS ASSIGNED.' HE SAID 'YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY, YOU WERE LISTENING TO ANOTHER CALL SIGN -- LISTEN UP!' I REPLIED 'NO I DID NOT, THIS IS WHAT WE WERE ASSIGNED.' THERE WAS A 30 SECOND DELAY AND WE HAD A NEW CTLR WHO VECTORED US AROUND FOR RWY 1R DULLES WITH NO PROBS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 582935: (NEW VOICE) WE KNOW IT IS NEW BECAUSE IT IS NOT MALE BUT A FEMALE CTLR -- WHO CRISPLY AND PROFESSIONALLY VECTORS US AROUND TO FINALLY INTERCEPT THE RWY 1R ILS AT DULLES. LAND UNEVENTFULLY. MY POINT ON THE SAFETY OF FLT ISSUE IS, AS A FORMER MIL FLYER WE WERE TAUGHT, AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE IT IS A GOOD AXIOM AND APPLIES IN THIS INSTANCE: 'WHILE IN THE AIR, WORK AS A TEAM, SETTLE ANY DIFFERENCES ON THE GND.' WITHOUT HEARING THE TAPES OF WHAT TRANSPIRED IN THE COM, THE PIC AND I COULD HAVE HEARD A WRONG CALL SIGN. THE PERCENTAGES OF THIS ARE LOW, BUT POSSIBLE. THE CTLR COULD HAVE MEANT ANOTHER ACFT BUT USED OUR CALL SIGN -- HE'S HUMAN ALSO. HOWEVER, AN ACFT IN IMC CONDITIONS, OVER A BUSY METROPOLITAN ARPT IS NOT A PLACE TO BE ASSIGNING INSTANT BLAME. CALMLY GET US ON THE GND AND CALL ON THE TELEPHONE IF THERE IS A PROB TO SOLVE. I DID NOT FEEL THIS WAS A TOTALLY UNSAFE INCIDENT, THE TCASII SHOWED NO CONFLICTING TFC IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BUT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A PROB IF CONDITIONS WERE DIFFERENT.

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.