Narrative:

On a flight from tmb to fmy, receiving flight following services and nearing fmy, PNF was communicating with fort meyers approach. PNF was handling communications, and requested a practice ILS approach to runway 5. The controller responded by assigning a new heading. Shortly thereafter a new controller came on and instructed a change to fort myers tower. When communications were established with fort myers tower, the tower controller instructed us to report downwind entry. PNF responded that we were on vectors to ILS runway 5. Tower controller responded that we needed to go back to approach for continuing vectors. We told the tower controller that approach had handed us over to tower. Upon returning to approach, the controller there chided us for not requesting the ILS timely. PNF stated that we had requested the ILS approach. Controller responded that he had been the original controller we were talking to and had changed position, and he disputed that we had requested the ILS approach. PNF affirmed that we indeed had, and suggested the controller review the tape. The approach controller issued further vectors for the ILS runway 5 approach and the flight continued uneventfully. PF and PNF both are certain that the practice ILS runway 5 approach was originally requested, and viewed the revised heading assignment as a confirmation that the controller had understood the request. It appears the original approach controller did not hear the request and the new heading assignment timing was coincidental, or the original controller failed to handoff the request to the new controller when he changed position. Although there appeared to be no compromise to safety or traffic flows in this case, other scenarios can be imagined.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A VANS RV6 PLT AND OBSERVER SAFETY PLT HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING WITH APCH CTLR REGARDING VECTORS FOR AN ILS TO FMY, FL.

Narrative: ON A FLT FROM TMB TO FMY, RECEIVING FLT FOLLOWING SVCS AND NEARING FMY, PNF WAS COMMUNICATING WITH FORT MEYERS APCH. PNF WAS HANDLING COMS, AND REQUESTED A PRACTICE ILS APCH TO RWY 5. THE CTLR RESPONDED BY ASSIGNING A NEW HEADING. SHORTLY THEREAFTER A NEW CTLR CAME ON AND INSTRUCTED A CHANGE TO FORT MYERS TWR. WHEN COMS WERE ESTABLISHED WITH FORT MYERS TWR, THE TWR CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO RPT DOWNWIND ENTRY. PNF RESPONDED THAT WE WERE ON VECTORS TO ILS RWY 5. TWR CTLR RESPONDED THAT WE NEEDED TO GO BACK TO APCH FOR CONTINUING VECTORS. WE TOLD THE TWR CTLR THAT APCH HAD HANDED US OVER TO TWR. UPON RETURNING TO APCH, THE CTLR THERE CHIDED US FOR NOT REQUESTING THE ILS TIMELY. PNF STATED THAT WE HAD REQUESTED THE ILS APCH. CTLR RESPONDED THAT HE HAD BEEN THE ORIGINAL CTLR WE WERE TALKING TO AND HAD CHANGED POS, AND HE DISPUTED THAT WE HAD REQUESTED THE ILS APCH. PNF AFFIRMED THAT WE INDEED HAD, AND SUGGESTED THE CTLR REVIEW THE TAPE. THE APCH CTLR ISSUED FURTHER VECTORS FOR THE ILS RWY 5 APCH AND THE FLT CONTINUED UNEVENTFULLY. PF AND PNF BOTH ARE CERTAIN THAT THE PRACTICE ILS RWY 5 APCH WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED, AND VIEWED THE REVISED HEADING ASSIGNMENT AS A CONFIRMATION THAT THE CTLR HAD UNDERSTOOD THE REQUEST. IT APPEARS THE ORIGINAL APCH CTLR DID NOT HEAR THE REQUEST AND THE NEW HEADING ASSIGNMENT TIMING WAS COINCIDENTAL, OR THE ORIGINAL CTLR FAILED TO HDOF THE REQUEST TO THE NEW CTLR WHEN HE CHANGED POS. ALTHOUGH THERE APPEARED TO BE NO COMPROMISE TO SAFETY OR TFC FLOWS IN THIS CASE, OTHER SCENARIOS CAN BE IMAGINED.

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.