Narrative:

I was the PIC and instructor pilot on a dual instruction flight. We were operating on a local IFR flight plan to allow the student to practice instrument approaches. We had requested to join the 16 DME arc from the omn VOR from the west. Our next request was to do the RNAV (GPS) Y 7L at dab. We received a clearance to depart the arc at our discretion; proceed direct cocad; and report established inbound on the approach. Cocad is the IAF for the RNAV Y 7L dab. The approach has a hold in lieu of procedure turn at cocad. At no point did we request to proceed straight-in; imply that we wanted to; or receive notice that we should expect to do so.when my student departed the DME arc and proceeded to cocad; he advised approach that we were direct cocad. Approach then cleared us for the RNAV Y 7L approach. Since we were heading to an IAF with published course reversal; the aim requires pilots to accomplish the course reversal unless we were on a nopt sector/route; were cleared for a 'straight-in' approach; or had received vectors to final. None of these conditions were met; so I instructed my student to accomplish the recommended direct entry into the hold at cocad once we reached the fix. As soon as we turned outbound for the entry into the hold in lieu of pt; the controller transmitted; 'I wanted to you go straight-in!' and gave us vectors to re-sequence us. The controller switched us to another sector; who vectored us to final for the approach. The rest of the approach and landing proceeded without incident.daytona approach controllers frequently misunderstand pilot responsibilities about course reversal at IAF's; and often assume that pilots will proceed straight-in if we are approaching the IAF from a shallow angle relative to the approach course. While it is often possible to anticipate this controller error; on our flight the approach control frequency was in almost continuous use with numerous other aircraft. There was no opportunity to make additional transmissions to ask for clarification to prevent any misunderstanding. I therefore believe we were correct in following our clearance as issued.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C172 Instructor Pilot and Daytona Approach Control disagreed regarding the need to fly the published course reversal on the RNAV (GPS) Y Runway 7L at DAB.

Narrative: I was the PIC and instructor pilot on a dual instruction flight. We were operating on a local IFR flight plan to allow the student to practice instrument approaches. We had requested to join the 16 DME arc from the OMN VOR from the west. Our next request was to do the RNAV (GPS) Y 7L at DAB. We received a clearance to depart the arc at our discretion; proceed direct COCAD; and report established inbound on the approach. COCAD is the IAF for the RNAV Y 7L DAB. The approach has a hold in lieu of procedure turn at COCAD. At no point did we request to proceed straight-in; imply that we wanted to; or receive notice that we should expect to do so.When my student departed the DME arc and proceeded to COCAD; he advised Approach that we were direct COCAD. Approach then cleared us for the RNAV Y 7L approach. Since we were heading to an IAF with published course reversal; the AIM requires pilots to accomplish the course reversal unless we were on a NoPT sector/route; were cleared for a 'straight-in' approach; or had received vectors to final. None of these conditions were met; so I instructed my student to accomplish the recommended direct entry into the hold at COCAD once we reached the fix. As soon as we turned outbound for the entry into the hold in lieu of PT; the Controller transmitted; 'I wanted to you go straight-in!' and gave us vectors to re-sequence us. The Controller switched us to another sector; who vectored us to final for the approach. The rest of the approach and landing proceeded without incident.Daytona Approach Controllers frequently misunderstand pilot responsibilities about course reversal at IAF's; and often assume that pilots will proceed straight-in if we are approaching the IAF from a shallow angle relative to the approach course. While it is often possible to anticipate this controller error; on our flight the Approach Control frequency was in almost continuous use with numerous other aircraft. There was no opportunity to make additional transmissions to ask for clarification to prevent any misunderstanding. I therefore believe we were correct in following our clearance as issued.

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.