Narrative:

We were en route from cle to cvg at 10000' to avoid high headwinds at higher altitude. Our route had been reclred direct ape-V5-mokes direct. Upon contact with cmh approach we were advised that we would be needed to descend to 8000'. As there was a scattered layer of clouds at approximately 8000' and we felt it would be bumpy. We requested to stay at 10000' as long as possible. ATC advised we would have to be down to 8000' prior to day airspace. Within a few mins (15 NM northeast of ape) we were given a descent to 8000'. We questioned ATC. The controller then became very anxious and gave a turn to 270 degrees. He then said to descend to 9000' and expect 12000'. As first officer started descent I questioned the controller. This seemed to make the controller more agitated. We were then told to turn back to 230 degrees and start descent now. We informed ATC we were already in a descent. At this point conflicting traffic was advised at 10000', 2 O'clock, 8 mi. Next call was 11 O'clock, less than 1 mi. Traffic was never seen. Then the controller angrily told us that we were to do what he says when he says to do it. That type of attitude creates a very complacent flight crew. I believe crews should question unclear clrncs. We complied with everything issued, but questioned the action. The controller continued to be what I would call irate. He informed us that we were to telephone when arriving in cvg. We advised that it was not possible and if he had a problem, they should call our company. The controller claimed that we caused lack of IFR sep. I don't believe this happened and feel the controller just lost handle of the situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LOSS OF STANDARD SEPARATION BETWEEN ACR-LTT AND UNK.

Narrative: WE WERE ENRTE FROM CLE TO CVG AT 10000' TO AVOID HIGH HEADWINDS AT HIGHER ALT. OUR ROUTE HAD BEEN RECLRED DIRECT APE-V5-MOKES DIRECT. UPON CONTACT WITH CMH APCH WE WERE ADVISED THAT WE WOULD BE NEEDED TO DSND TO 8000'. AS THERE WAS A SCATTERED LAYER OF CLOUDS AT APPROX 8000' AND WE FELT IT WOULD BE BUMPY. WE REQUESTED TO STAY AT 10000' AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. ATC ADVISED WE WOULD HAVE TO BE DOWN TO 8000' PRIOR TO DAY AIRSPACE. WITHIN A FEW MINS (15 NM NE OF APE) WE WERE GIVEN A DSCNT TO 8000'. WE QUESTIONED ATC. THE CTLR THEN BECAME VERY ANXIOUS AND GAVE A TURN TO 270 DEGS. HE THEN SAID TO DSND TO 9000' AND EXPECT 12000'. AS F/O STARTED DSCNT I QUESTIONED THE CTLR. THIS SEEMED TO MAKE THE CTLR MORE AGITATED. WE WERE THEN TOLD TO TURN BACK TO 230 DEGS AND START DSCNT NOW. WE INFORMED ATC WE WERE ALREADY IN A DSCNT. AT THIS POINT CONFLICTING TFC WAS ADVISED AT 10000', 2 O'CLOCK, 8 MI. NEXT CALL WAS 11 O'CLOCK, LESS THAN 1 MI. TFC WAS NEVER SEEN. THEN THE CTLR ANGRILY TOLD US THAT WE WERE TO DO WHAT HE SAYS WHEN HE SAYS TO DO IT. THAT TYPE OF ATTITUDE CREATES A VERY COMPLACENT FLT CREW. I BELIEVE CREWS SHOULD QUESTION UNCLEAR CLRNCS. WE COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING ISSUED, BUT QUESTIONED THE ACTION. THE CTLR CONTINUED TO BE WHAT I WOULD CALL IRATE. HE INFORMED US THAT WE WERE TO TELEPHONE WHEN ARRIVING IN CVG. WE ADVISED THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE AND IF HE HAD A PROB, THEY SHOULD CALL OUR COMPANY. THE CTLR CLAIMED THAT WE CAUSED LACK OF IFR SEP. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS HAPPENED AND FEEL THE CTLR JUST LOST HANDLE OF THE SITUATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.