Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given vectors to join the 24 right localizer and subsequently received an approach clearance. The aircraft was in the [right] turn to intercept the localizer when we received instructions from the Controller to turn to a heading of 160 degrees. This seemed unusual since it was a left turn and would take us off of the 24 right localizer and cause us to cross the south complex. However due to the volume of traffic and time constraints we read back the clearance and complied. Before the turn was complete a different controller said: 'What are you doing? You are doing the opposite of what we are telling you to do! You're killing us. You flew across the 25's under a descending aircraft.' A few seconds later we received further vectors and a climb clearance. Prior to issuing a second approach clearance the controller asked us if we intended to follow his instructions this time. We complied with all clearances and completed the flight without incident. After some discussion we are still convinced that we were given a 160 degree heading for reasons unknown to us at that moment. We are also convinced that we read back a 160 degree heading. We hypothesized later that what the controller meant to give us was a 260 degree heading because she did not like the intercept picture she saw on her display. This would also explain the second controller's comments about 'Doing the opposite of what we are telling you.' This situation was likely a result of a read back/hear back problem by one of the parties at a critical time in the approach environment. Paying more attention at that time by the errant person(s) would help. Additionally the second controller's comments using non-standard terminology such as; 'What are you doing' you're killing us. Do you intend to follow instructions this time?' caused even more tension and anxiety at a critical time. Instead of effectively communicating the problem by telling us we were assigned a 260 heading and we appeared to be flying a 160 heading or something to that effect; we were left wondering if we had navigation problems that would reoccur on the second approach.


Second narrative: It was a normal SADDIE6 arrival; crossed the SMO VOR then descended to 2;600 FT on a heading of 070 Degrees as per SoCal Approach instructions. About 4 miles past MERCE at 2;600 FT (in IMC in a marine layer during this event) it was here we were given our base turn instruction; heading 180 degrees; maintain 2;600 FT. Then a separate instruction; heading 240 degree intercept the 24R Localizer maintain 2;600 FT. A moment later SoCal stated maintain 2;600 FT cleared for the ILS 24R Approach. Everything was going normal; nothing was confusing nor was the clearance given late. The aircraft started to bank to the right as it was capturing the LOC; it was at that moment another/different controller was heard over the radio stating loudly 'Flight XXXX what are you doing!?' The original controller came back on right away and gave us of a left turn immediately heading 160 degrees. It was at this point when everything fell apart. The other controller then came back on and stated that we are not doing anything we are told to do and gave us a climbing instruction and turned us east where we were eventually put back into line for 24R Approach. The root cause was for this event may have been the assigned heading of 160 degrees. As stated there were 2 different controllers during this event. We were talking with a female controller since downwind to base to localizer intercept. The second controller came on and asked us 'what we were doing?' when we were in the turn intercepting the LOC. We slightly overshot the LOC no more than a half scale deviation but it was NOT full scale deviation and definitely not enough to cause question. I believe that the (male voice) controller did not hear the instruction left turn heading 160 given to us by the female controller because after we leveled on 160 degree heading he got on the radio permanently and began questioning our ability to listen to instructions; to which he added that we were flying south and were 1;000 FT under another aircraft established for 25L. This is evidence that the assigned heading of 160 may have been a mistake by the original SoCal Controller. What followed was him giving us climbing instructions and vectoring us east back into line for 24R all the while slowing other aircraft and complaining that we cannot follow instructions. This made it more confusing to us because we were doing what we were told. The Captain and I heard the same instructions so that added to the confusion. That ATC mindfully listen to pilot's read backs; and [more caution] when there are two controllers working one sector [training]. No matter how familiar a pilot is with a certain airport/airspace; always use due vigilance and it is important to speak in a slow; calm; clear voice especially on a busy night like it was during this event.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reports being issued a 160 degree heading as they are intercepting the Runway 24R localizer at LAX and complies. This is not what ATC intended and the crew is excoriated for crossing the south complex before being vectored back for another approach.