Narrative:

On a cross country IFR training flight; we contacted approach control with the ATIS information and requested the full ILS approach. We were descended to 6;000 and given vectors for the ILS/localizer runway xx from the VOR. The approach controller vectored us to a fix on the approach with instructions to do a procedure turn. Upon reaching the fix we turned outbound on the localizer to make a procedure turn. The approach controller seemed confused and asked if we were inbound; and instructed us to descend to 5;000 and turn inbound. Both my student and I were confused by these instructions. The controller again insisted on turning us to the right inbound. We started a turn; and descended. My student let the descent get out of control and we descended rapidly to below 4;000. The controller gave us an altitude alert and wanted us at 5;000. We broke out of the overcast at 4;000 and had ground contact in low visibility. I insisted that we would stay at 4;000 and take vectors to the airport. The controller vectored us to final for runway xy and we had an uneventful landing. Attempts to contact the controller by phone to discuss this approach were not successful. Reviewing the approach; if we had just flown on the airway from the VOR on heading of 065; we would have intercepted the localizer at the initial approach fix; made a simple right turn and flown 105 degrees to the runway. I cannot find any reason for the controller to send us to any other fix for that approach. If the weather had been down to the ILS minimums or localizer minimums we might not have been able to regain control of the aircraft from the turn/descent spiral.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Flight Instructor described a confusing interaction with ATC which resulted in an apparent non-standard ILS approach entry; an uncontrolled descent and an altitude excursion to ground contact during an IFR approach.

Narrative: On a cross country IFR training flight; we contacted Approach Control with the ATIS information and requested the full ILS approach. We were descended to 6;000 and given vectors for the ILS/LOC Runway XX from the VOR. The Approach Controller vectored us to a fix on the approach with instructions to do a procedure turn. Upon reaching the fix we turned outbound on the localizer to make a procedure turn. The Approach Controller seemed confused and asked if we were inbound; and instructed us to descend to 5;000 and turn inbound. Both my student and I were confused by these instructions. The Controller again insisted on turning us to the right inbound. We started a turn; and descended. My student let the descent get out of control and we descended rapidly to below 4;000. The Controller gave us an altitude alert and wanted us at 5;000. We broke out of the overcast at 4;000 and had ground contact in low visibility. I insisted that we would stay at 4;000 and take vectors to the airport. The Controller vectored us to final for Runway XY and we had an uneventful landing. Attempts to contact the Controller by phone to discuss this approach were not successful. Reviewing the approach; if we had just flown on the airway from the VOR on heading of 065; we would have intercepted the localizer at the initial approach fix; made a simple right turn and flown 105 degrees to the runway. I cannot find any reason for the Controller to send us to any other fix for that approach. If the weather had been down to the ILS minimums or LOC minimums we might not have been able to regain control of the aircraft from the turn/descent spiral.

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.