Air carrier inbound to sfo runway 28L failed to comply with go around instructions issued by the prm...

Narrative:

I was flying as captain on a B747-400 to sfo. Towards the end of the flight during descent; the ATIS was obtained and it indicated a 3;000 ft ceiling with ten miles visibility utilizing simultaneous prm approaches for runways 28L and 28R. While being vectored for the approach we were informed to expect 'ILS runway 28L' and that approach was briefed and flown by the first officer. We were given a final heading of 310 degrees to intercept the 28L localizer and that we were cleared for the 'ILS 28L' approach and to maintain 180 KTS until duyet. With this clearance we did not have a monitor frequency tuned and switched to tower sooner than if we had been on the prm approach. Unknown to us we were issued a traffic advisory with a go around clearance on the monitor frequency. I am fairly confident I read back the clearance as I believed it was issued without correction from ATC. Later that day I was informed by the flight office that TRACON had contacted them with an issue concerning our approach. They believe their approach clearance was for the 'ILS prm 28L' and not the ILS 28L approach. Neither I; nor my crew members; remember any mention of the term prm used in our approach clearance. The obvious solution to this scenario would have been for me to confirm the clearance when issued as it was different from the ATIS and another clearance issued for an aircraft on 28R.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier inbound to SFO Runway 28L failed to comply with go around instructions issued by the PRM Monitor Controller because the crew believed they were issued a standard ILS procedure and changed to the Tower frequency.

Narrative: I was flying as Captain on a B747-400 to SFO. Towards the end of the flight during descent; the ATIS was obtained and it indicated a 3;000 FT ceiling with ten miles visibility utilizing simultaneous PRM approaches for Runways 28L and 28R. While being vectored for the approach we were informed to expect 'ILS Runway 28L' and that approach was briefed and flown by the First Officer. We were given a final heading of 310 degrees to intercept the 28L localizer and that we were cleared for the 'ILS 28L' Approach and to maintain 180 KTS until DUYET. With this clearance we did not have a monitor frequency tuned and switched to Tower sooner than if we had been on the PRM approach. Unknown to us we were issued a traffic advisory with a go around clearance on the monitor frequency. I am fairly confident I read back the clearance as I believed it was issued without correction from ATC. Later that day I was informed by the Flight Office that TRACON had contacted them with an issue concerning our approach. They believe their approach clearance was for the 'ILS PRM 28L' and not the ILS 28L approach. Neither I; nor my crew members; remember any mention of the term PRM used in our approach clearance. The obvious solution to this scenario would have been for me to confirm the clearance when issued as it was different from the ATIS and another clearance issued for an aircraft on 28R.

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.

Attributes
ACN	915138
Time
Date	201010
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	NCT.TRACON
State Reference	CA
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B747-400
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Landing
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Not Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 144 Flight Crew Total 23000 Flight Crew Type 5000
Person 2
Function	Relief Pilot Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 250 Flight Crew Total 16000 Flight Crew Type 5000
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Air carrier inbound to sfo runway 28L failed to comply with go around instructions issued by the prm monitor controller because the crew believed they were issued a standard ILS procedure and changed to the tower frequency.