Narrative:

Vectored by bos approach to VOR runway 23, turned in 10 mi inside the VOR. We were turned over to hanscom tower at howdi final approach fix and told by tower to report airport in sight. Hanscom came into sight at about 3.5 mi, we called airport in sight and were given right base to land runway 29. At about 2 mi right base hanscom called and gave us 'circle east of the airport, you're #2.' since we were so close to the airport and in position for landing I asked for verification of 'circle east,' and was told affirmative circle east, traffic was downwind for landing. Considering the proximity of the airport after quick question to other pilot we thought ATC meant 'circle,' so we started a left turn with intention to do a 360 degree turn. At approximately 90 degrees of turn ATC called again and informed us we were to enter a 4 mi final for runway 29. Being so close to the airport we decided to continue turn in order to get adequate spacing for that maneuver. At approximately 120 degrees of turn ATC called again and finally made their request clear. He had wanted us to enter a right downwind for runway 29. I feel that while I was at fault for not demanding clarification of the nonstandard term 'circle east,' I feel that ATC was a great contributor to this confusion by use of such an ambiguous phrase so close to landing phase, west/O the use of aim phraseology, (ie, 'circle east' for right downwind to runway 29). While I am sure that any local pilot would probably understand the intent of this term, I think transient pilots should not have to spend precious seconds so close to the runway trying to second guess ATC intentions. And, to make matters even worse, ATC began a barrage of questions about our intentions while we were executing the circle to land, again adding to the landing phase at an inappropriate time. This harangue continued to the point that we were forced to discontinue our taxi and situation on the taxiway at the end of the runway and listen to ATC as she continued to berate us for a supposed infraction, when I feel that if standard phraseology had been used there would have been no problem in the first place. And to continue this obvious misunderstanding by tying up the tower frequency for that discussion for that period of time (approximately 5 mins) and at phase of the flight (circle with visibility of 4 mi) must be the epitome of unprofessional conduct. The end result being that no longer will I allow nonstandard phraseology go west/O demanding clarification.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IMPROPER PHRASEOLOGY.

Narrative: VECTORED BY BOS APCH TO VOR RWY 23, TURNED IN 10 MI INSIDE THE VOR. WE WERE TURNED OVER TO HANSCOM TWR AT HOWDI FINAL APCH FIX AND TOLD BY TWR TO RPT ARPT IN SIGHT. HANSCOM CAME INTO SIGHT AT ABOUT 3.5 MI, WE CALLED ARPT IN SIGHT AND WERE GIVEN RIGHT BASE TO LAND RWY 29. AT ABOUT 2 MI RIGHT BASE HANSCOM CALLED AND GAVE US 'CIRCLE E OF THE ARPT, YOU'RE #2.' SINCE WE WERE SO CLOSE TO THE ARPT AND IN POS FOR LNDG I ASKED FOR VERIFICATION OF 'CIRCLE E,' AND WAS TOLD AFFIRMATIVE CIRCLE E, TFC WAS DOWNWIND FOR LNDG. CONSIDERING THE PROX OF THE ARPT AFTER QUICK QUESTION TO OTHER PLT WE THOUGHT ATC MEANT 'CIRCLE,' SO WE STARTED A LEFT TURN WITH INTENTION TO DO A 360 DEG TURN. AT APPROX 90 DEGS OF TURN ATC CALLED AGAIN AND INFORMED US WE WERE TO ENTER A 4 MI FINAL FOR RWY 29. BEING SO CLOSE TO THE ARPT WE DECIDED TO CONTINUE TURN IN ORDER TO GET ADEQUATE SPACING FOR THAT MANEUVER. AT APPROX 120 DEGS OF TURN ATC CALLED AGAIN AND FINALLY MADE THEIR REQUEST CLEAR. HE HAD WANTED US TO ENTER A RIGHT DOWNWIND FOR RWY 29. I FEEL THAT WHILE I WAS AT FAULT FOR NOT DEMANDING CLARIFICATION OF THE NONSTANDARD TERM 'CIRCLE E,' I FEEL THAT ATC WAS A GREAT CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS CONFUSION BY USE OF SUCH AN AMBIGUOUS PHRASE SO CLOSE TO LNDG PHASE, W/O THE USE OF AIM PHRASEOLOGY, (IE, 'CIRCLE E' FOR RIGHT DOWNWIND TO RWY 29). WHILE I AM SURE THAT ANY LCL PLT WOULD PROBABLY UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THIS TERM, I THINK TRANSIENT PLTS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SPEND PRECIOUS SECS SO CLOSE TO THE RWY TRYING TO SECOND GUESS ATC INTENTIONS. AND, TO MAKE MATTERS EVEN WORSE, ATC BEGAN A BARRAGE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR INTENTIONS WHILE WE WERE EXECUTING THE CIRCLE TO LAND, AGAIN ADDING TO THE LNDG PHASE AT AN INAPPROPRIATE TIME. THIS HARANGUE CONTINUED TO THE POINT THAT WE WERE FORCED TO DISCONTINUE OUR TAXI AND SIT ON THE TXWY AT THE END OF THE RWY AND LISTEN TO ATC AS SHE CONTINUED TO BERATE US FOR A SUPPOSED INFRACTION, WHEN I FEEL THAT IF STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY HAD BEEN USED THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROB IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND TO CONTINUE THIS OBVIOUS MISUNDERSTANDING BY TYING UP THE TWR FREQ FOR THAT DISCUSSION FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME (APPROX 5 MINS) AND AT PHASE OF THE FLT (CIRCLE WITH VIS OF 4 MI) MUST BE THE EPITOME OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. THE END RESULT BEING THAT NO LONGER WILL I ALLOW NONSTANDARD PHRASEOLOGY GO W/O DEMANDING CLARIFICATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.