Narrative:

While on an instrument flight plan to esn; I was asked by patuxent approach if I wanted an ILS approach into esn airport. I stated that I would like the ILS 04 if workload permitted (VFR conditions prevailed at esn). The patuxent approach controller stated that would be no problem and cleared me direct to rikme intersection; which is the IAS/if for the approach. The patuxent approach controller did not indicate that the approach would be vectors to the final approach course; so I assumed the full published approach would be flown. The ILS 04 approach includes a 1 minute holding procedure turn at rikme intersection. Shortly before reaching rikme; I was handed off to potomac approach. The potomac approach controller told me to maintain 2000 ft until established on the localizer and that I was cleared for the ILS 04 approach. Upon reaching rikme intersection; I began the turn to the outbound leg of the procedure hold. The potomac approach controller called me and asked if I was having trouble getting established on the localizer because my heading was wrong. I advised the controller that I was on the outbound leg of the procedure hold. The controller then said; 'oh; ok.' I completed the hold; turned inbound; joined the localizer and the controller then handed me off to esn tower. ATC apparently expected me to simply join the localizer; however under the published IAP for ILS 04; I had to perform the procedure hold in the absence of any instruction that the approach was vectors to the final approach course. I believe the confusion may have arisen because the vector I was given to rikme by the previous controller was close to the localizer course heading; and a procedure hold was really not necessary to become established on the localizer. However; the published IAP does not have any nopt language that would have been applicable to my flight path. This could have resulted in an unsafe situation if ATC was not expecting me to fly the procedure hold; and had traffic behind me that were being vectored to the final approach course. In the future I will ask if I am expected to fly the full published procedure or simply join the localizer final approach course if given this approach.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IFR general aviation aircraft inbound to ESN is given direct routing to RIKME for the ILS 04; not RADAR vector/s; upon arrival at RIKME executed a mandatory procedure turn and was questioned by ATC regarding same.

Narrative: While on an instrument flight plan to ESN; I was asked by Patuxent Approach if I wanted an ILS approach into ESN airport. I stated that I would like the ILS 04 if workload permitted (VFR conditions prevailed at ESN). The Patuxent Approach Controller stated that would be no problem and cleared me direct to RIKME intersection; which is the IAS/IF for the approach. The Patuxent Approach Controller did not indicate that the approach would be vectors to the final approach course; so I assumed the full published approach would be flown. The ILS 04 approach includes a 1 minute holding procedure turn at RIKME intersection. Shortly before reaching RIKME; I was handed off to Potomac Approach. The Potomac Approach Controller told me to maintain 2000 FT until established on the localizer and that I was cleared for the ILS 04 approach. Upon reaching RIKME intersection; I began the turn to the outbound leg of the procedure hold. The Potomac Approach Controller called me and asked if I was having trouble getting established on the localizer because my heading was wrong. I advised the Controller that I was on the outbound leg of the procedure hold. The Controller then said; 'Oh; ok.' I completed the hold; turned inbound; joined the localizer and the Controller then handed me off to ESN Tower. ATC apparently expected me to simply join the localizer; however under the published IAP for ILS 04; I had to perform the procedure hold in the absence of any instruction that the approach was vectors to the final approach course. I believe the confusion may have arisen because the vector I was given to RIKME by the previous Controller was close to the localizer course heading; and a procedure hold was really not necessary to become established on the localizer. However; the published IAP does not have any NoPT language that would have been applicable to my flight path. This could have resulted in an unsafe situation if ATC was not expecting me to fly the procedure hold; and had traffic behind me that were being vectored to the final approach course. In the future I will ask if I am expected to fly the full published procedure or simply join the localizer final approach course if given this approach.

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.