Pilot of small aircraft on approach to det unable to understand tower clt account poor diction.

Attributes
ACN	117108
Time
Date	198907
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : det
State Reference	MI
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3000 msl bound upper : 3000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : det
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : private
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 45 flight time total : 800 flight time type : 120
ASRS Report	117108
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : non radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified cockpit
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Cleared for approach by detroit metropolitan approach control. Then turned over to detroit city tower. Tower said to report what sounded like almonds. I asked 3 times for him to clarify but he did not. I then broke off the approach as I was in VFR conditions. A normal VFR landing then was made at the directions of the tower operator. After landing I reviewed all aspects of the communications and have since decided that the tower operator was actually saying report at madds. Another passenger with me also felt that almonds was reporting point given. There is no almonds. 5 min earlier another pilot also had problems with the same controller. This can all be verified by the tower tape. It appears to me that the diction of the tower operator needs to be improved, so that he can be understood better. Also when a pilot asks for clarification it should be given immediately and his request should not be ignored. If we had been in actual IFR conditions problems could have been incurred with this misunderstanding.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA ON APCH TO DET UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND TWR CLT ACCOUNT POOR DICTION.

Narrative: CLRED FOR APCH BY DETROIT METRO APCH CTL. THEN TURNED OVER TO DETROIT CITY TWR. TWR SAID TO REPORT WHAT SOUNDED LIKE ALMONDS. I ASKED 3 TIMES FOR HIM TO CLARIFY BUT HE DID NOT. I THEN BROKE OFF THE APCH AS I WAS IN VFR CONDITIONS. A NORMAL VFR LNDG THEN WAS MADE AT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TWR OPERATOR. AFTER LNDG I REVIEWED ALL ASPECTS OF THE COMS AND HAVE SINCE DECIDED THAT THE TWR OPERATOR WAS ACTUALLY SAYING REPORT AT MADDS. ANOTHER PAX WITH ME ALSO FELT THAT ALMONDS WAS REPORTING POINT GIVEN. THERE IS NO ALMONDS. 5 MIN EARLIER ANOTHER PLT ALSO HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE SAME CTLR. THIS CAN ALL BE VERIFIED BY THE TWR TAPE. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE DICTION OF THE TWR OPERATOR NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED, SO THAT HE CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BETTER. ALSO WHEN A PLT ASKS FOR CLARIFICATION IT SHOULD BE GIVEN IMMEDIATELY AND HIS REQUEST SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED. IF WE HAD BEEN IN ACTUAL IFR CONDITIONS PROBLEMS COULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED WITH THIS MISUNDERSTANDING.

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.