Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CAK.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 4
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C CAK
ATC / advisory: Tower CAK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On descent into Akron; we were cleared direct BSV cleared for the approach maintain 3;100 FT and contact the Tower. Upon contacting the Tower; we were cleared to land. I queried the Tower about our clearance because we were not clear on how we were going to transition to the ILS from BSV. The Tower then asked what my clearance was from Approach to which I repeated 'cleared BSV VOR ILS 1 approach' to which he responded 'cleared for the approach.'If you look at the approach plate this is very confusing on how we were expected to reverse course inbound. There is a holding pattern over BSV but it is not a mandatory hold in bold print. We were quickly approaching BSV and both we were discussing how we were going to do this approach. We were not expecting a clearance to BSV. We were expecting vectors to final since we were in a radar environment. To eliminate the confusion; I requested direct CABLE (the FAF) twice to which Tower responded; 'cleared for the approach' both times. Was that a clearance to CABLE? At this time; we crossed BSV and the First Officer (pilot flying) turned north; intercepted the Localizer and landed. This was a very confusing event in a very short period of time that I tried to clarify and resolve; but was unable to do so because of absolutely no help from the Tower Controller. At the very least he should have cleared us to CABLE then to land. This would have eliminated all the confusion between us and the Tower on how we were safely going to accomplish this approach. The Tower Controller knew there was some confusion on our part as to our approach clearance yet he was no help whatsoever in clearing this up. I expect a Controller to clarify his clearance to me if I question it in the interest of safety. I was very disappointed in the way this Tower Controller responded to our needs.


Second narrative: Inbound from the west and about 30 miles from CAK; we were told by CAK Approach we needed to slow to minimum allowable airspeed because we were following a priority aircraft and to expect radar vectors to ILS Runway 1. A descent to 3;100 FT was also given along with clearance to BSV. BSV was not on our route; but the IAF is so I reloaded the approach in the FMC and selected BSV as the approach transition.About five to ten miles from BSV; the Approach Controller told us to cross BSV at 3;100 FT and cleared us for the ILS to Runway 1 and then handed us off to Tower. I looked at the approach chart and realized that we would be flying through the Localizer for Runway 1 to get to BSV. I then asked the Captain if he thought that since we were cleared to BSV if we needed to fly the course reversal. Three factors that entered my mind as to why we didn't need to fly the course reversal were; 1) we were in radar contact and were told to expect radar vectors for the approach; 2) the course reversal was not in bold print on the approach chart; and 3) the FMC route had us going from BSV; then had BULIT as a flyby fix and then had us intercepting final outside of CABLE (the FAF).We then decided to fly the course reversal so I put the outbound heading of the course reversal in the heading bug but; as we passed over BSV; the Captain said to just fly the turn. Since we had already decided to fly the course reversal; I thought he meant that we should fly the turn the FMC route had us doing. We continued to fly the FMC route and abeam BULIT we started a descent to 2;400 FT (the published altitude inside of BULIT) thinking we were on the protected side of the holding fix at BSV. After leveling at 2;400 FT we were told by Tower that we needed to maintain 3;000 FT until established on the Localizer. I started correcting but the correction wasn't quick enough and we got another alert from the Tower Controller. I then made a quicker correction and intercepted the glideslope at 3;000 FT and continued the approach.


Synopsis: An RNAV equipped air carrier flight crew was uncertain whether their clearance direct to BSV; cleared for the Runway 1 ILS to CAK required them to fly a course reversal at BSV. ATC was unresponsive to their request for clarification and they opted not to fly the reversal. They then descended from the 3;000 FT MEA from BSV to BULIT prior to being 'established' on the Localizer per the Tower Controller.