37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 1181541 |
Time | |
Date | 201406 |
Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | COS.Airport |
State Reference | CO |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | A320 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | Pilot Flying |
Events | |
Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue |
Narrative:
We diverted to cos on our flight to ZZZ due to weather.the cos approach controller on 118.5 ignored our check in for seven minutes; up to the point where we assumed we had a total communication failure and had to transmit into the blind to see if our radios worked. This was an unwelcomed addition to our workload and caused a safety concern; as we were approaching cos with no [clearance] in bad weather on a divert. We finally got vectors that actually took us away from the advertised runway 17L by almost 20 miles north of the airport and back into the weather. We then received vectors to head south and were ignored again when asking several times for ATC's intentions. We eventually learned through other pilots that cos is landing north. The controller froze up and caused many aircrews a great deal of frustration; as no plan or sequence was communicated to the pilots. The controller was non-responsive and seemed to have lost his situational awareness. Our concern was not getting his attention or causing such a delay that we would not have enough fuel for a go-around in the adverse conditions that existed (gusty winds and low level windshear) caused us to contact dispatch for publication as an alternate while on downwind; simply because we lost trust in the controller to sequence us safely and in a timely manner. Only the change of frequency to another approach controller ensured us a continuation to cos. Have more controllers on staff that can jump in and assist if one gets overworked.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: An A320 flight crew; diverted to COS due to weather at their destination along with other flights; was distressed at their inability to communicate with and extract information from the Approach Controller.
Narrative: We diverted to COS on our flight to ZZZ due to weather.The COS Approach Controller on 118.5 ignored our check in for seven minutes; up to the point where we assumed we had a total communication failure and had to transmit into the blind to see if our radios worked. This was an unwelcomed addition to our workload and caused a safety concern; as we were approaching COS with no [clearance] in bad weather on a divert. We finally got vectors that actually took us away from the advertised Runway 17L by almost 20 miles north of the airport and back into the weather. We then received vectors to head south and were ignored again when asking several times for ATC's intentions. We eventually learned through other pilots that COS is landing north. The Controller froze up and caused many aircrews a great deal of frustration; as no plan or sequence was communicated to the pilots. The Controller was non-responsive and seemed to have lost his situational awareness. Our concern was not getting his attention or causing such a delay that we would not have enough fuel for a go-around in the adverse conditions that existed (gusty winds and low level windshear) caused us to contact Dispatch for PUB as an alternate while on downwind; simply because we lost trust in the controller to sequence us safely and in a timely manner. Only the change of frequency to another Approach Controller ensured us a continuation to COS. Have more controllers on staff that can jump in and assist if one gets overworked.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.