Narrative:

On the RNAV (GPS) runway 26 approach to ft lauderdale executive airport; we were given a clearance to proceed to forsu (if/IAF) maintain 2000 ft. As we got closer to forsu; approaching from the northeast; the controller issued our next clearance which was to cross forsu at 2000 ft cleared for the approach; contact executive tower. Not being on a vector outside of forsu; we crossed forsu at 2000 ft and started our procedure turn. As we started our procedure turn; the tower controller asked why we were turning to the north. We replied that we were crossing forsu and starting our procedure turn outbound. The tower controller then told us to contact miami approach. We switched back and called miami approach and the controller asked why we were turning north. We replied that we were turning outbound on the procedure turn. As we were on the outbound procedure turn; the controller told us that we should have asked for the clearance to do the procedure turn; saying further that what we had done could be dangerous if there was other traffic. We stated that we were doing part of the procedure we thought was required. In looking at the approach chart; the procedure turn in holding is in bold; and nowhere on the chart does it show any symbol of a pie shape and a 'nopt;' and we were not on any vectors to intercept the final course outside of forsu. As we turned inbound; the approach controller once again cleared us for the approach. We successfully completed the approach and landed. As we taxied in; ground control asked us to call miami approach; and gave us the telephone number. The other pilot called the miami TRACON; spoke to the supervisor; and explained that we were only doing what we thought we should have done in that we crossed forsu and started the procedure turn outbound as we thought we should have done; because we were not on vectors to the final approach; and the procedure turn is in bold on the chart. The supervisor explained that because we were approaching forsu from the northeast; at a 45 degree or less angle from forsu; we did not need to do the procedure turn; referring us to the aim that explained this. As the other pilot and I researched the aim; we discovered that what we had done was; in fact; not correct. We now better understand that when approaching the (if/IAF) on an approach at less than a 45 degree angle; you can make a straight in approach and that if you need to execute a procedure turn; you need to request and receive ATC clearance to do the procedure turn. In further discussion between the other pilot and the miami TRACON supervisor; the supervisor suggested that miscom could have been a factor in this event; and that they should look at how both pilots and controllers can avoid this miscom in the future by issuing a clearance such as 'nxxx; cross forsu at 2000 ft cleared for the straight in GPS runway 26 approach contact executive tower 120.9.' in the future both myself and the other pilot will adopt a SOP to ensure that there is no miscom or misinterp of the said instrument approach procedure. When a situation warrants a straight in approach; we will verify with approach control that we are cleared for the straight in approach to said runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CE750 FLT CREW WAS CLEARED FOR THE RNAV RWY 26 APPROACH TO FXE FROM THE NORTHEAST. THEY FLEW TO THE IAF (FORSU) AND EXECUTED A PROCEDURE TURN; WHICH WAS NOT EXPECTED BY THE CONTROLLER.

Narrative: ON THE RNAV (GPS) RWY 26 APCH TO FT LAUDERDALE EXECUTIVE ARPT; WE WERE GIVEN A CLRNC TO PROCEED TO FORSU (IF/IAF) MAINTAIN 2000 FT. AS WE GOT CLOSER TO FORSU; APCHING FROM THE NE; THE CTLR ISSUED OUR NEXT CLRNC WHICH WAS TO CROSS FORSU AT 2000 FT CLRED FOR THE APCH; CONTACT EXECUTIVE TWR. NOT BEING ON A VECTOR OUTSIDE OF FORSU; WE CROSSED FORSU AT 2000 FT AND STARTED OUR PROC TURN. AS WE STARTED OUR PROC TURN; THE TWR CTLR ASKED WHY WE WERE TURNING TO THE N. WE REPLIED THAT WE WERE XING FORSU AND STARTING OUR PROC TURN OUTBOUND. THE TWR CTLR THEN TOLD US TO CONTACT MIAMI APCH. WE SWITCHED BACK AND CALLED MIAMI APCH AND THE CTLR ASKED WHY WE WERE TURNING N. WE REPLIED THAT WE WERE TURNING OUTBOUND ON THE PROC TURN. AS WE WERE ON THE OUTBOUND PROC TURN; THE CTLR TOLD US THAT WE SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR THE CLRNC TO DO THE PROC TURN; SAYING FURTHER THAT WHAT WE HAD DONE COULD BE DANGEROUS IF THERE WAS OTHER TFC. WE STATED THAT WE WERE DOING PART OF THE PROC WE THOUGHT WAS REQUIRED. IN LOOKING AT THE APCH CHART; THE PROC TURN IN HOLDING IS IN BOLD; AND NOWHERE ON THE CHART DOES IT SHOW ANY SYMBOL OF A PIE SHAPE AND A 'NOPT;' AND WE WERE NOT ON ANY VECTORS TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL COURSE OUTSIDE OF FORSU. AS WE TURNED INBOUND; THE APCH CTLR ONCE AGAIN CLRED US FOR THE APCH. WE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE APCH AND LANDED. AS WE TAXIED IN; GND CTL ASKED US TO CALL MIAMI APCH; AND GAVE US THE TELEPHONE NUMBER. THE OTHER PLT CALLED THE MIAMI TRACON; SPOKE TO THE SUPVR; AND EXPLAINED THAT WE WERE ONLY DOING WHAT WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THAT WE CROSSED FORSU AND STARTED THE PROC TURN OUTBOUND AS WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE; BECAUSE WE WERE NOT ON VECTORS TO THE FINAL APCH; AND THE PROC TURN IS IN BOLD ON THE CHART. THE SUPVR EXPLAINED THAT BECAUSE WE WERE APCHING FORSU FROM THE NE; AT A 45 DEG OR LESS ANGLE FROM FORSU; WE DID NOT NEED TO DO THE PROC TURN; REFERRING US TO THE AIM THAT EXPLAINED THIS. AS THE OTHER PLT AND I RESEARCHED THE AIM; WE DISCOVERED THAT WHAT WE HAD DONE WAS; IN FACT; NOT CORRECT. WE NOW BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN APCHING THE (IF/IAF) ON AN APCH AT LESS THAN A 45 DEG ANGLE; YOU CAN MAKE A STRAIGHT IN APCH AND THAT IF YOU NEED TO EXECUTE A PROC TURN; YOU NEED TO REQUEST AND RECEIVE ATC CLRNC TO DO THE PROC TURN. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION BTWN THE OTHER PLT AND THE MIAMI TRACON SUPVR; THE SUPVR SUGGESTED THAT MISCOM COULD HAVE BEEN A FACTOR IN THIS EVENT; AND THAT THEY SHOULD LOOK AT HOW BOTH PLTS AND CTLRS CAN AVOID THIS MISCOM IN THE FUTURE BY ISSUING A CLRNC SUCH AS 'NXXX; CROSS FORSU AT 2000 FT CLRED FOR THE STRAIGHT IN GPS RWY 26 APCH CONTACT EXECUTIVE TWR 120.9.' IN THE FUTURE BOTH MYSELF AND THE OTHER PLT WILL ADOPT A SOP TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO MISCOM OR MISINTERP OF THE SAID INST APCH PROC. WHEN A SITUATION WARRANTS A STRAIGHT IN APCH; WE WILL VERIFY WITH APCH CTL THAT WE ARE CLRED FOR THE STRAIGHT IN APCH TO SAID RWY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.