Narrative:

Upon contact with sgf approach; the captain (pm) informed the controller that we were requesting vectors to the ILS 14.the controller cleared us to the sgf VOR and the captain informed him that we were already cleared direct to the airport; purely as clarification. The controller said something that ended in something like 'do what you want to do' or something to that effect. He eventually started to vector us to a left downwind for the ILS runway 14. Aircraft Y was in the vicinity as well and was receiving vectors to runway 14 for a visual. As aircraft Y passed below us the controller asked if we had the traffic in sight. The captain stated that the traffic was in sight but that we still wanted vectors to the runway 14 approach. Then the controller stated that the airport was off our left side and that it was clear; essentially questioning our request for an ILS. The captain; professionally restated (yet again) that the airport was in sight behind our left wing and that we wanted vectors to the ILS final approach course. The controller stated something again about the airport being in the clear. At some point the check airman utilized the observer seat audio panel to attempt to explain to the controller that a crewmember unfamiliar with an airport is required to utilize an instrument approach procedure as a matter of [company] policy. The controller responded with 'that's not my problem' or something to that effect. The approach and landing were flown without incident and the communications between ATC and our aircraft continued normally from that point forward.the controller's continued reluctance to simply provide the services we requested (vectors to the ILS final on runway 14). Neither the captain nor I have operated into sgf recently and both agreed the best course of action was to comply with the fom regarding operations into unfamiliar airports. The controller displayed an unprofessional attitude toward our simple request. This is a small airport with little traffic at that time of the morning. If the controller was unable to accommodate our request he should have stated such and we could have flown the complete procedure. At no time were we informed that he was unable to provide us with vectors.the atcs should be reminded that the requests of the crew are paramount and should be accommodated if at all possible. A controller has absolutely no knowledge what particular set of circumstances drives a request. Perhaps it is a required equipment check or a pilot on the initial leg of IOE. The importance of pilot/controller cooperation cannot be understated and in this particular case we were made to feel like our request was unreasonable. The fear is that his continued berating to accept a visual approach and abandon our plan of action had the potential to violate the fom guidance and increase risk. The controller's radio 'presence' was unprofessional and did not instill confidence in the air traffic control mechanism at sgf.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 First Officer reported ATC not acting in a professional way during flight into a non-busy ATC environment. Pilot requested ILS approach and Controller stated several times the location of the airport and that it was in the clear. Pilot went on to describe how ATC needs to comply with pilot requests when able.

Narrative: Upon contact with SGF Approach; the Captain (PM) informed the controller that we were requesting vectors to the ILS 14.The controller cleared us to the SGF VOR and the Captain informed him that we were already cleared direct to the airport; purely as clarification. The controller said something that ended in something like 'do what you want to do' or something to that effect. He eventually started to vector us to a left downwind for the ILS Runway 14. Aircraft Y was in the vicinity as well and was receiving vectors to Runway 14 for a visual. As Aircraft Y passed below us the controller asked if we had the traffic in sight. The captain stated that the traffic was in sight but that we still wanted vectors to the Runway 14 approach. Then the controller stated that the airport was off our left side and that it was clear; essentially questioning our request for an ILS. The captain; professionally restated (yet again) that the airport was in sight behind our left wing and that we wanted vectors to the ILS final approach course. The controller stated something again about the airport being in the clear. At some point the Check Airman utilized the observer seat audio panel to attempt to explain to the controller that a crewmember unfamiliar with an airport is required to utilize an instrument approach procedure as a matter of [company] policy. The controller responded with 'that's not my problem' or something to that effect. The approach and landing were flown without incident and the communications between ATC and our aircraft continued normally from that point forward.The controller's continued reluctance to simply provide the services we requested (vectors to the ILS final on Runway 14). Neither the Captain nor I have operated into SGF recently and both agreed the best course of action was to comply with the FOM regarding operations into unfamiliar airports. The controller displayed an unprofessional attitude toward our simple request. This is a small airport with little traffic at that time of the morning. If the controller was unable to accommodate our request he should have stated such and we could have flown the complete procedure. At no time were we informed that he was unable to provide us with vectors.The ATCs should be reminded that the requests of the crew are paramount and should be accommodated if at all possible. A controller has absolutely no knowledge what particular set of circumstances drives a request. Perhaps it is a required equipment check or a pilot on the initial leg of IOE. The importance of pilot/controller cooperation cannot be understated and in this particular case we were made to feel like our request was unreasonable. The fear is that his continued berating to accept a visual approach and abandon our plan of action had the potential to violate the FOM guidance and increase risk. The controller's radio 'presence' was unprofessional and did not instill confidence in the Air Traffic Control mechanism at SGF.

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.