Narrative:

The following event occurred when flying from mdw to luk on jun/wed/03 at approximately XA00. We were communicating with cincinnati approach while flying radar vectors for the ILS to runway 21L. I was the PF. We were on the assigned heading at 9000 ft. We were getting some interference on the radio from ZTL. The PNF was on the FBO frequency verifying our arrival arrangements. We could not reach them earlier in the flight. I was monitoring approach. Approach advised of a course change, which would set us up for the ILS and would bring us over hamilton. The communication was partially garbled but I repeated back the course 175 degrees. Approach repeated the heading again and I repeated the heading 175 degrees. This time approach acknowledged the course and I initiated the turn to 175 degrees. Hamilton was not depicted on the arrival or any of the approachs. By approach acknowledging the heading, I assumed this was the correct direction. I was established on heading 175 degrees when approach came back and requested a course change to heading 075 degrees. I repeated the heading change and turned to a heading 075 degrees. At about the same time, we received a TA on our TCASII. The approaching aircraft was approximately 3 mi away. Approach also requested we descend to 7000 ft, expeditiously. The TA was resolved shortly after we turned toward the 075 degree heading. Shortly after descending to 7000 ft and established on the 075 degree heading, approach asked us if we were familiar with the luk area. I was not familiar with the luk area. The PNF said he was familiar. Approach stated that hamilton was commonly used by other aircraft when setting up for the runway 21L ILS. We should have understood the heading of 075 degrees would have brought us over hamilton and thus avoided the 175/075 degree heading confusion. I mentioned he acknowledged my 175 degree heading. We briefly discussed hamilton and the ILS approach to runway 21L. I apologized for the miscom and we continued to the ILS runway 21L and landed at luk without further incident. We mentioned to approach that we were receiving bleed-thru from ZTL. They stated we're not aware of this problem with ZTL. In retrospect, I should have asked approach for the identify for hamilton. This may have helped clear the miscom. After getting on the ground, we looked up hamilton. There are 2 hamiltons northwest of luk. One is an NDB and the other is the hamilton airport. I do not know which hamilton he was referring to. I do not believe he should assume that we are familiar with the local procedures at luk. The bleed-over from ZTL was also a contributing factor. Supplemental information from acn 586495: according to the PF, approach advised of a course change, which would set us up for the ILS and would bring us over hamilton. He told me later that the communication was partially garbled but he repeated back the course 175 degrees. I heard this repeat in my left ear even though I wasn't on approach frequency, approach repeated the heading again and he repeated the heading 175 degrees. This time approach acknowledged the course and he initiated the turn to 175 degrees. Hamilton was not depicted on the arrival or any of the approachs. By approach acknowledging the heading he assumed this was the correct direction. The PF was established on heading 175 degrees when approach came back and requested a course change to heading 075 degrees. He repeated the heading change and turned to a heading of 075 degrees. At about the same time, we received a TA on our TCASII. The approaching aircraft was approximately 3 mi away. Approach also requested we descend to 7000 ft expeditiously. The TA was resolved shortly after we turned toward the 075 degree heading. Shortly after descending to 7000 ft and established on the 075 degree heading, approach asked us if we were familiar with the luk area. The PF was not familiar with the luk area. I was now back on approach frequency and told him I was familiar with the cincinnati area. However, I was not familiar with 'hamilton.' approach stated that other aircraft commonly used hamilton when setting up for the runway 21L ILS. The controller said we should have understood the heading of 075 degrees would have brought us over hamilton and thus avoided the 175/075 heading confusion. The PF mentioned he acknowledged the 175 degree heading. We briefly discussed hamilton and the ILS approach to runway 21L. In retrospect, the PF should have asked approach for the identify for hamilton. This may have helped clear the miscom. After getting on the ground, we looked up hamilton. There are 2 hamiltons northwest of luk. One is an NDB and the other is the hamilton airport. We do not know which hamilton he was referring to. I do not believe the controller should assume that we are familiar with the local procedures at luk.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C-650 CREW TURNED TO A HDG OF 175 DEGS VERSUS 075 DEGS AFTER THE APCH CTLR CONFIRMED HDG 175 DEGS IN THE READBACK. THE CTLR USED LCL TERMINOLOGY GEOGRAPHIC POS THAT WERE NOT LISTED ON THE IFR APCH PLATE.

Narrative: THE FOLLOWING EVENT OCCURRED WHEN FLYING FROM MDW TO LUK ON JUN/WED/03 AT APPROX XA00. WE WERE COMMUNICATING WITH CINCINNATI APCH WHILE FLYING RADAR VECTORS FOR THE ILS TO RWY 21L. I WAS THE PF. WE WERE ON THE ASSIGNED HDG AT 9000 FT. WE WERE GETTING SOME INTERFERENCE ON THE RADIO FROM ZTL. THE PNF WAS ON THE FBO FREQ VERIFYING OUR ARR ARRANGEMENTS. WE COULD NOT REACH THEM EARLIER IN THE FLT. I WAS MONITORING APCH. APCH ADVISED OF A COURSE CHANGE, WHICH WOULD SET US UP FOR THE ILS AND WOULD BRING US OVER HAMILTON. THE COM WAS PARTIALLY GARBLED BUT I REPEATED BACK THE COURSE 175 DEGS. APCH REPEATED THE HDG AGAIN AND I REPEATED THE HDG 175 DEGS. THIS TIME APCH ACKNOWLEDGED THE COURSE AND I INITIATED THE TURN TO 175 DEGS. HAMILTON WAS NOT DEPICTED ON THE ARR OR ANY OF THE APCHS. BY APCH ACKNOWLEDGING THE HDG, I ASSUMED THIS WAS THE CORRECT DIRECTION. I WAS ESTABLISHED ON HDG 175 DEGS WHEN APCH CAME BACK AND REQUESTED A COURSE CHANGE TO HDG 075 DEGS. I REPEATED THE HDG CHANGE AND TURNED TO A HDG 075 DEGS. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, WE RECEIVED A TA ON OUR TCASII. THE APCHING ACFT WAS APPROX 3 MI AWAY. APCH ALSO REQUESTED WE DSND TO 7000 FT, EXPEDITIOUSLY. THE TA WAS RESOLVED SHORTLY AFTER WE TURNED TOWARD THE 075 DEG HDG. SHORTLY AFTER DSNDING TO 7000 FT AND ESTABLISHED ON THE 075 DEG HDG, APCH ASKED US IF WE WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE LUK AREA. I WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LUK AREA. THE PNF SAID HE WAS FAMILIAR. APCH STATED THAT HAMILTON WAS COMMONLY USED BY OTHER ACFT WHEN SETTING UP FOR THE RWY 21L ILS. WE SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE HDG OF 075 DEGS WOULD HAVE BROUGHT US OVER HAMILTON AND THUS AVOIDED THE 175/075 DEG HDG CONFUSION. I MENTIONED HE ACKNOWLEDGED MY 175 DEG HDG. WE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED HAMILTON AND THE ILS APCH TO RWY 21L. I APOLOGIZED FOR THE MISCOM AND WE CONTINUED TO THE ILS RWY 21L AND LANDED AT LUK WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. WE MENTIONED TO APCH THAT WE WERE RECEIVING BLEED-THRU FROM ZTL. THEY STATED WE'RE NOT AWARE OF THIS PROB WITH ZTL. IN RETROSPECT, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED APCH FOR THE IDENT FOR HAMILTON. THIS MAY HAVE HELPED CLR THE MISCOM. AFTER GETTING ON THE GND, WE LOOKED UP HAMILTON. THERE ARE 2 HAMILTONS NW OF LUK. ONE IS AN NDB AND THE OTHER IS THE HAMILTON ARPT. I DO NOT KNOW WHICH HAMILTON HE WAS REFERRING TO. I DO NOT BELIEVE HE SHOULD ASSUME THAT WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE LCL PROCS AT LUK. THE BLEED-OVER FROM ZTL WAS ALSO A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 586495: ACCORDING TO THE PF, APCH ADVISED OF A COURSE CHANGE, WHICH WOULD SET US UP FOR THE ILS AND WOULD BRING US OVER HAMILTON. HE TOLD ME LATER THAT THE COM WAS PARTIALLY GARBLED BUT HE REPEATED BACK THE COURSE 175 DEGS. I HEARD THIS REPEAT IN MY L EAR EVEN THOUGH I WASN'T ON APCH FREQ, APCH REPEATED THE HDG AGAIN AND HE REPEATED THE HDG 175 DEGS. THIS TIME APCH ACKNOWLEDGED THE COURSE AND HE INITIATED THE TURN TO 175 DEGS. HAMILTON WAS NOT DEPICTED ON THE ARR OR ANY OF THE APCHS. BY APCH ACKNOWLEDGING THE HDG HE ASSUMED THIS WAS THE CORRECT DIRECTION. THE PF WAS ESTABLISHED ON HDG 175 DEGS WHEN APCH CAME BACK AND REQUESTED A COURSE CHANGE TO HDG 075 DEGS. HE REPEATED THE HDG CHANGE AND TURNED TO A HDG OF 075 DEGS. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, WE RECEIVED A TA ON OUR TCASII. THE APCHING ACFT WAS APPROX 3 MI AWAY. APCH ALSO REQUESTED WE DSND TO 7000 FT EXPEDITIOUSLY. THE TA WAS RESOLVED SHORTLY AFTER WE TURNED TOWARD THE 075 DEG HDG. SHORTLY AFTER DSNDING TO 7000 FT AND ESTABLISHED ON THE 075 DEG HDG, APCH ASKED US IF WE WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE LUK AREA. THE PF WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LUK AREA. I WAS NOW BACK ON APCH FREQ AND TOLD HIM I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE CINCINNATI AREA. HOWEVER, I WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH 'HAMILTON.' APCH STATED THAT OTHER ACFT COMMONLY USED HAMILTON WHEN SETTING UP FOR THE RWY 21L ILS. THE CTLR SAID WE SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE HDG OF 075 DEGS WOULD HAVE BROUGHT US OVER HAMILTON AND THUS AVOIDED THE 175/075 HDG CONFUSION. THE PF MENTIONED HE ACKNOWLEDGED THE 175 DEG HDG. WE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED HAMILTON AND THE ILS APCH TO RWY 21L. IN RETROSPECT, THE PF SHOULD HAVE ASKED APCH FOR THE IDENT FOR HAMILTON. THIS MAY HAVE HELPED CLR THE MISCOM. AFTER GETTING ON THE GND, WE LOOKED UP HAMILTON. THERE ARE 2 HAMILTONS NW OF LUK. ONE IS AN NDB AND THE OTHER IS THE HAMILTON ARPT. WE DO NOT KNOW WHICH HAMILTON HE WAS REFERRING TO. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CTLR SHOULD ASSUME THAT WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE LCL PROCS AT LUK.

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.