APCH CTLR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN ACR FLC NOT ACCEPTING A CLRNC TO DSND BECAUSE THEY SAW TFC ON THEIR TCASII BELOW THEM AND QUESTIONED THE CTLR'S CLRNC. TFC WAS A VFR C185 THAT WAS 3000 FT BELOW AND 2 PT 5 NM AWAY FROM THE ACR AND NOT A FACTOR. RPTR SAYS ACR CAPT WAS MAKING UNCALLED FOR REMARKS ON THE FREQ.

Date: 1996-08 · Aircraft: ATP Advanced Turboprop

Anomalies: deviation-discrepancy-procedural-clearance|other-unspecified

Synopsis

APCH CTLR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN ACR FLC NOT ACCEPTING A CLRNC TO DSND BECAUSE THEY SAW TFC ON THEIR TCASII BELOW THEM AND QUESTIONED THE CTLR'S CLRNC. TFC WAS A VFR C185 THAT WAS 3000 FT BELOW AND 2 PT 5 NM AWAY FROM THE ACR AND NOT A FACTOR. RPTR SAYS ACR CAPT WAS MAKING UNCALLED FOR REMARKS ON THE FREQ.

Narrative

ON AUG/XX/96; AT APPROX XA05Z; I WAS WORKING THE RADAR E AND W POS (ARE & ARW) AT YNG. I ACCEPTED A HDOF FROM CLE APCH CTL ON A T/BATP/A. THE ACFT WAS DSNDING TO 5000 FT MSL. UPON INITIAL CONTACT; THE ACFT ADVISED THAT THE ARPT WAS IN SIGHT. DUE TO INCREASING WORKLOAD AND TFC; ACR X WAS INSTRUCTED TO FLY HDG 090 DEG VECTOR FOR THE ARPT. THIS HDG WOULD PUT THE ACFT ON A 5 MI FINAL OVER THE OM FOR RWY 14. THE PLT IMMEDIATELY STARTED QUESTIONING THE CLRNC. HE ADVISED ME OF TFC OBSERVED ON HIS TCASII AT HIS 2 O'CLOCK; APPROX 6 MI; SQUAWKING VFR; INDICATING 2000 FT MSL. I; HAVING ALREADY OBSERVED THE TFC AND NOTED ITS TRACK; HAD DETERMINED THAT THE ACR X WOULD NOT EVER BECOME A FACTOR. I ATTENDED TO OTHER HIGHER PRIORITY DUTIES. IN LESS THAN 30 SECONDS I RETURNED TO ACR X. THE TFC WAS STILL NO FACTOR. ITS LOCATION AT THIS TIME APPROX 1 1/2 MI N OF ACR X AND CLBING OUT OF 2600 FT MSL. THE TARGET'S TRACK WAS APPROX 220 AND WOULD PASS WELL BEHIND AND 3000 FT MSL BELOW ACR X. APPARENTLY; THIS WAS NOT ENOUGH SEPARATION FOR THE PLT OF ACR X. I ISSUED A DSCNT CLRNC TO ACR X AND THE PLT REPLIED; WE'LL JUST HOLD IT OFF UNTIL WE GET PAST THIS TFC. ONCE AGAIN; THE TFC WAS IN NO WAY NO HOW A FACTOR. THE FREQ AT THIS TIME WAS BUSY WITH APPROX 11 ACFT. I INSTRUCTED THE ACFT TO DSND AND MAINTAIN 3000 FT MSL AGAIN. THE PLT MADE SOME UNPROFESSIONAL REMARK ABOUT FLYING THE AIRPLANE WHICH I COULD NOT DIGEST DUE TO THE WORKLOAD. CREATING FREQ CONGESTION ON A BUSY CTL FREQ IS VERY UNPROFESSIONAL. A SHORT TIME LATER; 1 MIN OR SO; I ASKED ACR X IF THEY HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. THE PLT REPLIED THAT HE STILL HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. I CLRED ACR X FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 14 AT YNG. THE PLT READ BACK THE CLRNC AND STATED; 'SEE YA.' I ADVISED THE PLT TO REMAIN THIS FREQ. THIS IS REQUIRED BY LCL DIRECTIVES THAT STATE THAT ACFT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO THE TWR BTWN 12 AND 7 MI FROM THE ARPT. ACR X WAS 15 MI OUT. AFTER COORDINATING A POINTOUT WITH ZOB CIP SECTOR; I INSTRUCTED ACR X TO CONTACT THE TWR ON 119.5 AND THEN GIVE THE TWR A CALL WHEN ON THE GND. THE PROFESSIONAL WAY TO HANDLE THE SIT. JUST A SIDE NOTE; AFTER ACR X DEPARTED THE FREQ; SEVERAL OTHER ACFT COMMENTED ON FREQ ABOUT THE PLT'S UNPROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS PLT HAS CREATED THIS HAZARD. IN ADDITION; THE PLT WAS VERY UNPROFESSIONAL WITH THE AREA SUPVR ON THE TELEPHONE. A FEW QUESTIONS COME TO MIND: DOES TCASII GIVE PLT; WHO DON'T RECEIVE RA'S; THE RIGHT TO DEVIATE FROM ANY ATC CLRNC? THE PLT ADMITTED NO RA INVOLVED IN THE SIT. SHOULDN'T CRM EXTEND TO ATC ALSO?

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.