A VANS RV6 PLT AND OBSERVER SAFETY PLT HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING WITH APCH CTLR REGARDING VECTORS FOR AN ILS TO FMY; FL.

Narrative

ON A FLT FROM TMB TO FMY; RECEIVING FLT FOLLOWING SVCS AND NEARING FMY; PNF WAS COMMUNICATING WITH FORT MEYERS APCH. PNF WAS HANDLING COMS; AND REQUESTED A PRACTICE ILS APCH TO RWY 5. THE CTLR RESPONDED BY ASSIGNING A NEW HEADING. SHORTLY THEREAFTER A NEW CTLR CAME ON AND INSTRUCTED A CHANGE TO FORT MYERS TWR. WHEN COMS WERE ESTABLISHED WITH FORT MYERS TWR; THE TWR CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO RPT DOWNWIND ENTRY. PNF RESPONDED THAT WE WERE ON VECTORS TO ILS RWY 5. TWR CTLR RESPONDED THAT WE NEEDED TO GO BACK TO APCH FOR CONTINUING VECTORS. WE TOLD THE TWR CTLR THAT APCH HAD HANDED US OVER TO TWR. UPON RETURNING TO APCH; THE CTLR THERE CHIDED US FOR NOT REQUESTING THE ILS TIMELY. PNF STATED THAT WE HAD REQUESTED THE ILS APCH. CTLR RESPONDED THAT HE HAD BEEN THE ORIGINAL CTLR WE WERE TALKING TO AND HAD CHANGED POS; AND HE DISPUTED THAT WE HAD REQUESTED THE ILS APCH. PNF AFFIRMED THAT WE INDEED HAD; AND SUGGESTED THE CTLR REVIEW THE TAPE. THE APCH CTLR ISSUED FURTHER VECTORS FOR THE ILS RWY 5 APCH AND THE FLT CONTINUED UNEVENTFULLY. PF AND PNF BOTH ARE CERTAIN THAT THE PRACTICE ILS RWY 5 APCH WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED; AND VIEWED THE REVISED HEADING ASSIGNMENT AS A CONFIRMATION THAT THE CTLR HAD UNDERSTOOD THE REQUEST. IT APPEARS THE ORIGINAL APCH CTLR DID NOT HEAR THE REQUEST AND THE NEW HEADING ASSIGNMENT TIMING WAS COINCIDENTAL; OR THE ORIGINAL CTLR FAILED TO HDOF THE REQUEST TO THE NEW CTLR WHEN HE CHANGED POS. ALTHOUGH THERE APPEARED TO BE NO COMPROMISE TO SAFETY OR TFC FLOWS IN THIS CASE; OTHER SCENARIOS CAN BE IMAGINED.