Narrative:

ZOA began issuing delay vectors due to thunderstorms at las; and then issued a holding pattern at oal. The initial holding clearance was straightforward: cleared to oal; hold southeast on J92; leg length at pilot's discretion; efc in 'about 20 mins.' note that this efc time was issued using non-standard nomenclature. We set up the holding pattern in the FMGC and; approaching from the west; the autoplt began a direct entry. Just as the aircraft was making its right turn onto the outbound leg; the controller asked; are you making a right or a left turn?' I told him we were in a right turn. Moments later; he told us to remain within 10 mi northeast of J92. Our outbound leg was well beyond 10 mi from J92; and I became concerned that the holding pattern as issued was taking us close to a restr area. The controller then told us (and other aircraft issued the holding clearance) that our holding pattern should be 'southwest of J92;' ie; on the left side of the airway. I asked him if he wanted us to make left turns. But he again responded with; 'remain southwest of J92.' this was the second example of non-standard nomenclature; and I began to wonder if the controller might be a trainee. He then made a reference to our inbound leg to oal as being a 'sebound' bearing. This seemed to reveal significant confusion on his part; for; when holding southeast of oak; our inbound leg would be a nwbound bearing. Before any further discussion; he cleared us out of the holding pattern with a left turn direct to bty. The flight then proceeded toward las. Ultimately; we diverted after las refused arrs due to thunderstorms and surface winds exceeding 50 KTS. Flying the holding pattern as cleared resulted in the controller issuing a series of mid-course corrections; suggesting that the controller may have issued the holding clearance incorrectly. The controller used non-standard nomenclature and appeared to be confused about how aircraft under his control would fly the holding pattern he had issued. Although the controller told us to 'hold southeast' of oal on J92; I suspect that his intention may have been for us to hold northwest of oal. I suspect this for 2 reasons: 1) holding northwest would have made more operational sense; keeping flts farther away from restr airspace and putting them on a bearing toward las on the inbound holing leg; and 2) he made reference to our inbound leg as being sebound.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 CAPT REPORTS HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY ZOA CONTROLLER DO NOT PRODUCE THE INTENDED HOLDING PATTERN.

Narrative: ZOA BEGAN ISSUING DELAY VECTORS DUE TO TSTMS AT LAS; AND THEN ISSUED A HOLDING PATTERN AT OAL. THE INITIAL HOLDING CLRNC WAS STRAIGHTFORWARD: CLRED TO OAL; HOLD SE ON J92; LEG LENGTH AT PLT'S DISCRETION; EFC IN 'ABOUT 20 MINS.' NOTE THAT THIS EFC TIME WAS ISSUED USING NON-STANDARD NOMENCLATURE. WE SET UP THE HOLDING PATTERN IN THE FMGC AND; APCHING FROM THE W; THE AUTOPLT BEGAN A DIRECT ENTRY. JUST AS THE ACFT WAS MAKING ITS R TURN ONTO THE OUTBOUND LEG; THE CTLR ASKED; ARE YOU MAKING A R OR A L TURN?' I TOLD HIM WE WERE IN A R TURN. MOMENTS LATER; HE TOLD US TO REMAIN WITHIN 10 MI NE OF J92. OUR OUTBOUND LEG WAS WELL BEYOND 10 MI FROM J92; AND I BECAME CONCERNED THAT THE HOLDING PATTERN AS ISSUED WAS TAKING US CLOSE TO A RESTR AREA. THE CTLR THEN TOLD US (AND OTHER ACFT ISSUED THE HOLDING CLRNC) THAT OUR HOLDING PATTERN SHOULD BE 'SW OF J92;' IE; ON THE L SIDE OF THE AIRWAY. I ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED US TO MAKE L TURNS. BUT HE AGAIN RESPONDED WITH; 'REMAIN SW OF J92.' THIS WAS THE SECOND EXAMPLE OF NON-STANDARD NOMENCLATURE; AND I BEGAN TO WONDER IF THE CTLR MIGHT BE A TRAINEE. HE THEN MADE A REF TO OUR INBOUND LEG TO OAL AS BEING A 'SEBOUND' BEARING. THIS SEEMED TO REVEAL SIGNIFICANT CONFUSION ON HIS PART; FOR; WHEN HOLDING SE OF OAK; OUR INBOUND LEG WOULD BE A NWBOUND BEARING. BEFORE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION; HE CLRED US OUT OF THE HOLDING PATTERN WITH A L TURN DIRECT TO BTY. THE FLT THEN PROCEEDED TOWARD LAS. ULTIMATELY; WE DIVERTED AFTER LAS REFUSED ARRS DUE TO TSTMS AND SURFACE WINDS EXCEEDING 50 KTS. FLYING THE HOLDING PATTERN AS CLRED RESULTED IN THE CTLR ISSUING A SERIES OF MID-COURSE CORRECTIONS; SUGGESTING THAT THE CTLR MAY HAVE ISSUED THE HOLDING CLRNC INCORRECTLY. THE CTLR USED NON-STANDARD NOMENCLATURE AND APPEARED TO BE CONFUSED ABOUT HOW ACFT UNDER HIS CTL WOULD FLY THE HOLDING PATTERN HE HAD ISSUED. ALTHOUGH THE CTLR TOLD US TO 'HOLD SE' OF OAL ON J92; I SUSPECT THAT HIS INTENTION MAY HAVE BEEN FOR US TO HOLD NW OF OAL. I SUSPECT THIS FOR 2 REASONS: 1) HOLDING NW WOULD HAVE MADE MORE OPERATIONAL SENSE; KEEPING FLTS FARTHER AWAY FROM RESTR AIRSPACE AND PUTTING THEM ON A BEARING TOWARD LAS ON THE INBOUND HOLING LEG; AND 2) HE MADE REF TO OUR INBOUND LEG AS BEING SEBOUND.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.