Narrative:

ATC continues to be confused on the difference between a vector and an assigned direct to fix relative to procedures turns. The following is the third occurrence of this error for me in the past two years and happened with both center and approach controllers: a. Requested RNAV runway 16R approach at pae. B. Aircraft was vectored to the north and east of IAF eywok -- ATC then issued cleared direct eywok; maintain 3000 ft; cleared GPS runway 16R paine C. We proceeded direct to eywok and then began a course reversal using the standard holding pattern entry. D. ATC queried why we were going thru the final approach course and we answered we were starting the course reversal outbound -- they then said we were supposed to go straight in. We never received a 'straight in' modification to our 'direct to' clearance to the FAF. This continues to be a major problem -- controllers are clearing RNAV aircraft to a fix and expecting a straight in approach -- IFR operational rules clearly differentiate when course reversals are required: 1) when on a vector or 2) on a nopt route. This problem has occurred for me at least 3 times in the past couple of years -- I usually try to clarify with the controller; but sometimes frequency congestion does not allow it. I suggest that the FAA take the following action: 1) when providing vectors for an RNAV approach make it standard to use a heading rather than 'direct to fix.' this would be just like vectors to other approaches. 2) if other than a heading is used to establish the aircraft inbound ensure that ATC adds the phrase 'cleared straight in' approach when a procedure turn is not wanted. 3) review with all controllers the difference in a 'direct to' fix clearances relates to IFR procedure turn rules.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: General aviation aircraft initiating RNAV Runway 16R to PAE expressed concern regarding ATC's confused RNAV procedures as they relate to vectors versus direct fix clearances.

Narrative: ATC continues to be confused on the difference between a Vector and an assigned direct to fix relative to procedures turns. The following is the third occurrence of this error for me in the past two years and happened with both Center and Approach Controllers: A. Requested RNAV Runway 16R approach at PAE. B. Aircraft was vectored to the North and East of IAF EYWOK -- ATC then issued cleared direct EYWOK; maintain 3000 FT; cleared GPS Runway 16R Paine C. We proceeded direct to EYWOK and then began a course reversal using the standard holding pattern entry. D. ATC queried why we were going thru the final approach course and we answered we were starting the course reversal outbound -- they then said we were supposed to go straight in. We never received a 'straight in' modification to our 'direct to' clearance to the FAF. This continues to be a major problem -- controllers are clearing RNAV aircraft to a fix and expecting a straight in approach -- IFR operational rules clearly differentiate when course reversals are required: 1) when on a vector or 2) on a NOPT route. This problem has occurred for me at least 3 times in the past couple of years -- I usually try to clarify with the controller; but sometimes frequency congestion does not allow it. I suggest that the FAA take the following action: 1) When providing vectors for an RNAV approach make it standard to use a heading rather than 'direct to fix.' This would be just like vectors to other approaches. 2) If other than a heading is used to establish the aircraft inbound ensure that ATC adds the phrase 'cleared straight in' approach when a procedure turn is not wanted. 3) Review with all controllers the difference in a 'direct to' fix clearances relates to IFR procedure turn rules.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.