Narrative:

We were returning to land at hio after a local flight. We reported to hio tower over forest grove, landing with ATIS. (Forest grove 7 mi -- used as a common reporting point for VFR traffic on the west side of hio.) hio tower responded with 'report left base runway 30.' we read back 'report left base runway 30.' the PIC and myself discussed the clearance since this is not the usual entry to runway 30 from the forest grove area. We both agreed that we heard the clearance correctly and that our readback was correct without any correction from the tower. We approached the airport at 1200 ft MSL and set up on the entry left base for runway 30. We reported to the tower, 'on left base runway 30 at tv highway (a common reporting point for the left base to runway 30). Hio tower responded 'to follow the twin 1/2 mi final, cleared to land.' we read back, 'follow twin, cleared to land.' just before turning final for runway 30, we called the tower that we do not have the twin traffic. Hio tower responded with 'the twin traffic in on the ground.' we turned final, set power, flaps, propeller, airspeed, etc. At approximately 800 ft, tower called saying, 'you're on the wrong approach, you should be on runway 2.' then to turn left for a right base entry to runway 2. Well, we were very busy for several mins complying with the 90 degree left turn, initiating a go around and cleaning up the aircraft. We did not feel a climbing turn back to a low harried, double right turn approach, was very wise or safe under the circumstances and confusion we had just experienced. We climbed straight ahead until establishing a positive climb and correct airspeed. Tower responded by querying us as to our position. We responded by asking for a straight south departure to clear the airport traffic area and try again. We reported back over forest grove, were given a clearance for a left downwind entry to runway 30 and landed safely. We discussed the confusion over the clrncs and decided at least to talk with the tower to see if we did indeed hear things correctly and take any action to prevent similar occurrences in the future. The tower person informed us that the particular controller was no longer in the building, that they were aware of the situation -- he had seen us on the wrong approach. He informed us that 2 runways were in use at the time and sometimes things got confusing. We got the impression that the tower person really did not want to talk with us and that he was subtly suggesting that all this was our fault. We asked if a visit to the tower might help to clear things up. That was met with a request for a phone number and a 'we'll get back to you later.' we feel that 4 separate clrncs to approach and land on runway 30 were not confusing and were followed correctly by us. It would be very difficult for 2 separate people to confuse 4 distinct clrncs to runway 30 versus runway 2. We have been flying from hio for over 7 yrs and pride ourselves on correct and safe procedures. We go out of our way to help the tower whenever possible, extend waiting for traffic, letting faster aircraft land ahead, extending downwind for departures, etc. This is the first time we have been involved in such a snafu -- needless to say, we do not want to experience similar 'confusion' again. We have learned that in the future any 'strange' clearance (especially by the same controller), will be questioned back to the tower by us. Hopefully, the tower will do the same.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATCT LCL CTLR AT HIO POTENTIALLY MISHEARD RV6 PLT'S READBACKS CAUSING THE PLT TO LINE UP ON WRONG RWY.

Narrative: WE WERE RETURNING TO LAND AT HIO AFTER A LCL FLT. WE RPTED TO HIO TWR OVER FOREST GROVE, LNDG WITH ATIS. (FOREST GROVE 7 MI -- USED AS A COMMON RPTING POINT FOR VFR TFC ON THE W SIDE OF HIO.) HIO TWR RESPONDED WITH 'RPT L BASE RWY 30.' WE READ BACK 'RPT L BASE RWY 30.' THE PIC AND MYSELF DISCUSSED THE CLRNC SINCE THIS IS NOT THE USUAL ENTRY TO RWY 30 FROM THE FOREST GROVE AREA. WE BOTH AGREED THAT WE HEARD THE CLRNC CORRECTLY AND THAT OUR READBACK WAS CORRECT WITHOUT ANY CORRECTION FROM THE TWR. WE APCHED THE ARPT AT 1200 FT MSL AND SET UP ON THE ENTRY L BASE FOR RWY 30. WE RPTED TO THE TWR, 'ON L BASE RWY 30 AT TV HWY (A COMMON RPTING POINT FOR THE L BASE TO RWY 30). HIO TWR RESPONDED 'TO FOLLOW THE TWIN 1/2 MI FINAL, CLRED TO LAND.' WE READ BACK, 'FOLLOW TWIN, CLRED TO LAND.' JUST BEFORE TURNING FINAL FOR RWY 30, WE CALLED THE TWR THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE TWIN TFC. HIO TWR RESPONDED WITH 'THE TWIN TFC IN ON THE GND.' WE TURNED FINAL, SET PWR, FLAPS, PROP, AIRSPD, ETC. AT APPROX 800 FT, TWR CALLED SAYING, 'YOU'RE ON THE WRONG APCH, YOU SHOULD BE ON RWY 2.' THEN TO TURN L FOR A R BASE ENTRY TO RWY 2. WELL, WE WERE VERY BUSY FOR SEVERAL MINS COMPLYING WITH THE 90 DEG L TURN, INITIATING A GAR AND CLEANING UP THE ACFT. WE DID NOT FEEL A CLBING TURN BACK TO A LOW HARRIED, DOUBLE R TURN APCH, WAS VERY WISE OR SAFE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONFUSION WE HAD JUST EXPERIENCED. WE CLBED STRAIGHT AHEAD UNTIL ESTABLISHING A POSITIVE CLB AND CORRECT AIRSPD. TWR RESPONDED BY QUERYING US AS TO OUR POS. WE RESPONDED BY ASKING FOR A STRAIGHT S DEP TO CLR THE ARPT TFC AREA AND TRY AGAIN. WE RPTED BACK OVER FOREST GROVE, WERE GIVEN A CLRNC FOR A L DOWNWIND ENTRY TO RWY 30 AND LANDED SAFELY. WE DISCUSSED THE CONFUSION OVER THE CLRNCS AND DECIDED AT LEAST TO TALK WITH THE TWR TO SEE IF WE DID INDEED HEAR THINGS CORRECTLY AND TAKE ANY ACTION TO PREVENT SIMILAR OCCURRENCES IN THE FUTURE. THE TWR PERSON INFORMED US THAT THE PARTICULAR CTLR WAS NO LONGER IN THE BUILDING, THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF THE SIT -- HE HAD SEEN US ON THE WRONG APCH. HE INFORMED US THAT 2 RWYS WERE IN USE AT THE TIME AND SOMETIMES THINGS GOT CONFUSING. WE GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TWR PERSON REALLY DID NOT WANT TO TALK WITH US AND THAT HE WAS SUBTLY SUGGESTING THAT ALL THIS WAS OUR FAULT. WE ASKED IF A VISIT TO THE TWR MIGHT HELP TO CLR THINGS UP. THAT WAS MET WITH A REQUEST FOR A PHONE NUMBER AND A 'WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU LATER.' WE FEEL THAT 4 SEPARATE CLRNCS TO APCH AND LAND ON RWY 30 WERE NOT CONFUSING AND WERE FOLLOWED CORRECTLY BY US. IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR 2 SEPARATE PEOPLE TO CONFUSE 4 DISTINCT CLRNCS TO RWY 30 VERSUS RWY 2. WE HAVE BEEN FLYING FROM HIO FOR OVER 7 YRS AND PRIDE OURSELVES ON CORRECT AND SAFE PROCS. WE GO OUT OF OUR WAY TO HELP THE TWR WHENEVER POSSIBLE, EXTEND WAITING FOR TFC, LETTING FASTER ACFT LAND AHEAD, EXTENDING DOWNWIND FOR DEPS, ETC. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SUCH A SNAFU -- NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE DO NOT WANT TO EXPERIENCE SIMILAR 'CONFUSION' AGAIN. WE HAVE LEARNED THAT IN THE FUTURE ANY 'STRANGE' CLRNC (ESPECIALLY BY THE SAME CTLR), WILL BE QUESTIONED BACK TO THE TWR BY US. HOPEFULLY, THE TWR WILL DO THE SAME.

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.