Narrative:

Cleared for RNAV 8 approach to mot. Contacted tower. The tower controller did not clear us to land; but told us to report a four mile final. We entered icing conditions and about the time to report the four mile final; we received an EICAS message engine 2 bleed low temp (heated air for the wings in ice). We processed that since we were at low thrust in ice and about to break out soon; with a high workload of monitoring and crosschecking (the first officer's first ever RNAV approach and my second in IMC) we decided to continue the approach to land and deal with that issue on the ground. By the time we processed our intentions we were two miles past the check in point and the controller came on the frequency very agitated; frustrated with emotion; ranting something about 'are we just going to ignore the call at four miles; all pilots [from your company] think they can come up here and not make that call at 4 miles and we are tired of it; so go-around.' without adequate clearance as to fly runway heading or fly as published; the controller continued ranting and lecturing about 'there could have been a truck on the runway' etc. Meanwhile we are trying to make call outs to execute our go-around and trying to get a word in edgewise as to what our clearance was that the controller failed to give us. I was so frustrated that I keyed the mike and said 'that's not right' because there were other ways to handle our missing a call by two miles with plenty of time to get a clearance to land. There was no conflict of aircraft or vehicles at all. The last I heard was to contact departure and that the controller would talk to us on the ground later in which the controller still did not give us an altitude or heading because of the continuous ranting. (I wish someone would pull the tapes and listen to this exchange). We were vectored around for another approach and landed. The controller gave us a number to call her as we taxied in. We did not make the call at four miles. On the phone I explained to the controller that I had an abnormal issue with fuel considerations and a potential system issue with our anti-ice and de-ice; and my priorities were to fly the airplane first; navigate to a safe area; and communicate last. Every good pilot knows that; and every good controller knows that. Again; I was lectured that if I were flying into O'hare they wouldn't stand for this etc. Then the controller attempted to lecture me how I should engage in management and prioritization since there are two pilots on board. This controller was a threat. The controller compromised safety for my passengers; increased the risk of their lives because he/she wanted to teach us pilots a lesson and because there 'could have been a truck on the runway.' the controller gave us a go-around without adequate instructions (or I missed the instructions with her chatter) while being lectured on frequency. This controller could have decreased risk to a lower level that existed to my passengers by either clearing us to land (we still had two miles to go without a conflict) and telling us to call later to talk about it; or giving us a go-around with simple instructions of heading; altitude or published without the lecture. No passengers or aircrew should have their safety decreased to a lower level by a controller who wants to press an issue and feel they have to teach a crew a lesson. This was the lowest level of professionalism that I have ever encountered by a controller in 30 years of flying. This controller used poor judgement and decreased the level of safety built into the system. I am not pretending to say that I know how stressful it is to work in a busy class D airport at a small airport with their job; but it was obvious this controller lacked knowledge of risk management. In retrospect I would not have keyed the mike on the go around and said anything. My first officer was very professional; calm; and polite on the radio.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier arrival experiencing icing difficulties and somewhat unfamiliar with the RNAV approach procedure was issued a go-around apparently because of failing to contact the Tower as directed; the Reporter claiming the Controller was very unprofessional and caused a significant safety situation.

Narrative: Cleared for RNAV 8 approach to MOT. Contacted Tower. The Tower Controller did not clear us to land; but told us to report a four mile final. We entered icing conditions and about the time to report the four mile final; we received an EICAS message Engine 2 Bleed Low Temp (heated air for the wings in ice). We processed that since we were at low thrust in ice and about to break out soon; with a high workload of monitoring and crosschecking (the First Officer's first ever RNAV approach and my second in IMC) we decided to continue the approach to land and deal with that issue on the ground. By the time we processed our intentions we were two miles past the check in point and the Controller came on the frequency very agitated; frustrated with emotion; ranting something about 'Are we just going to ignore the call at four miles; all pilots [from your company] think they can come up here and not make that call at 4 miles and we are tired of it; so go-around.' Without adequate clearance as to fly runway heading or fly as published; the Controller continued ranting and lecturing about 'there could have been a truck on the runway' etc. Meanwhile we are trying to make call outs to execute our go-around and trying to get a word in edgewise as to what our clearance was that the Controller failed to give us. I was so frustrated that I keyed the mike and said 'that's not right' because there were other ways to handle our missing a call by two miles with plenty of time to get a clearance to land. There was no conflict of aircraft or vehicles at all. The last I heard was to contact Departure and that the Controller would talk to us on the ground later in which the Controller still did not give us an altitude or heading because of the continuous ranting. (I wish someone would pull the tapes and listen to this exchange). We were vectored around for another approach and landed. The Controller gave us a number to call her as we taxied in. We did not make the call at four miles. On the phone I explained to the Controller that I had an abnormal issue with fuel considerations and a potential system issue with our anti-ice and de-ice; and my priorities were to fly the airplane first; navigate to a safe area; and communicate last. Every good pilot knows that; and every good controller knows that. Again; I was lectured that if I were flying into O'Hare they wouldn't stand for this etc. Then the Controller attempted to lecture me how I should engage in management and prioritization since there are two pilots on board. This Controller was a threat. The Controller compromised safety for my passengers; increased the risk of their lives because he/she wanted to teach us pilots a lesson and because there 'could have been a truck on the runway.' The Controller gave us a go-around without adequate instructions (or I missed the instructions with her chatter) while being lectured on frequency. This Controller could have decreased risk to a lower level that existed to my passengers by either clearing us to land (we still had two miles to go without a conflict) and telling us to call later to talk about it; or giving us a go-around with simple instructions of heading; altitude or published without the lecture. No passengers or aircrew should have their safety decreased to a lower level by a Controller who wants to press an issue and feel they have to teach a crew a lesson. This was the lowest level of professionalism that I have ever encountered by a Controller in 30 years of flying. This Controller used poor judgement and decreased the level of safety built into the system. I am not pretending to say that I know how stressful it is to work in a busy class D airport at a small airport with their job; but it was obvious this Controller lacked knowledge of risk management. In retrospect I would not have keyed the mike on the go around and said anything. My First Officer was very professional; calm; and polite on the radio.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.