Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Marginal VFR to IFR.  Most aircraft landing at airports were on instrument approach.  Two aircraft involved;  Aircraft X was cleared for VOR approach into OKB (RWY 6 / 24) and Aircraft Y (awaiting IFR clearance for VOR approach into CRQ) was holding VFR over OCN VOR directly over Aircraft X; I was waiting for proper separation before making Aircraft Y IFR.  Aircraft X started commencing approach into OKB and was descending southeast bound out of 2;500 FT; I told Aircraft Y that once they made it back around over the VOR I would have an IFR clearance for him into CRQ (I would of had divergence at that point).  Aircraft Y was now south bound towards the VOR and once over the VOR I made him IFR and cleared him for the approach.  I continued with scan because there were other aircraft on my frequency.  When my scan got back to Aircraft X he was out of position north of OKB runway and turning right east to west towards the approach end of Runway 24 and back into Aircraft Y who was south bound towards CRQ.  When I saw this I thought maybe Aircraft X had lost control of his aircraft due to his position and his descent; then he over flew Runway 24 and contacted me when he was upwind.  Aircraft Y was at 1;600 FT and Aircraft X was at 600 FT; so no separation was lost.  I issued 'Brasher Warning' to Aircraft X for possible pilot deviation.  Basically the pilot was supposed to initiate a missed approach on Runway 6 at OKB; but decided to make his approach to Runway 24 instead.Recommendation would be to inform all pilots that when making an approach to a specific runway regardless if they are on a VOR approach; that pilot needs to follow the FAR and ensure they continue missed approach on the runway the commence their approach on.


Second narrative: I was conducting instrument training with a student.  We departed KMYF on an IFR flight plan to KOKB.  ATC understood our intentions to fly the VOR-A approach to KOKB; go missed approach according to the published procedure; and then say intentions.  We flew this approach twice; both times to a missed approach.  Both times; we broke out under the 1;800 feet overcast to good VMC conditions; continued our descent to MDA; circled to line up with Runway 24; then executed the published miss procedure on short final to Runway 24. Later; ATC asked us on frequency to call them after landing.  During that phone call; the TRACON Controller with SoCal explained that there was traffic inbound on the approach; and separation standards were compromised.  He asked us to explain our actions; whereupon I explained that we had the required visual references to descend below MDA; so we circled to line up with Runway 24 as if we were landing; intending to go miss on short final.  I told him we had no way of knowing about a separation issue; but that we had met the requirements to descend below MDA; and that the missed approach procedure we flew was as published.


Synopsis: Controller and pilot report of event where Controller was thinking the aircraft was going to go to one runway while the pilot thought they were going to the other.