Pilot reporter complains about radar vector on final approach and subsequent comments made by the AT...

Attributes
ACN	137787
Time
Date	199002
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : sdf
State Reference	KY
Altitude	msl bound lower : 7300 msl bound upper : 7500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : sdf
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 20000 flight time type : 5000
ASRS Report	137787
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

We were sequenced nicely behind an air carrier on approach to runway 01 sdf. We were asked by approach if we had traffic in sight. We replied that we did. We were cleared for visibility runway 01. Then at about 7200' MSL, about 10-12 mi ssw from end of runway 01 I was directed to turn to 180 degree heading (and cleared to 2400'). After 5 mi on this heading I was turned back to the airport and reclred for a visibility. In operations I called approach control to ask why I was turned away from the airport. I was given to a person who idented himself as the supervisor on duty. I idented myself as the captain of flight air carrier X and asked why I was turned to the south. He said, 'well, the controller did not think you had the traffic in sight, and in my opinion, you were at 7500' and too high to make the approach.' I asked him, 'sir, how much time do you have in the medium large transport?' he said 'if we are going to talk about this shit (and another unintelligible comment),' and smashed the phone into the receiver and hung up! I don't like this kind of treatment and seriously doubt if a man who can't control himself any better than this should be allowed to supervise others. This type of action was inconsiderate and totally uncalled for. Additionally, it did not answer my question. Does the supervisor of approach have the latitude and authority to make decisions on how to fly my aircraft? Please check the tapes and provide my answers as to why I was treated this way in flight and on the phone. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter asked that ASRS check the tapes of incident and provide him with answers of radar vector and treatment on the phone. Analyst told reporter that tapes are only held for 15 days and are no longer available. It was suggested during the conversation that reporter call the facility whenever there is a question on ATC handling, and if he is not satisfied with response, then he could elevate it to the facility manager.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT REPORTER COMPLAINS ABOUT RADAR VECTOR ON FINAL APCH AND SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS MADE BY THE ATC SUPVR OVER THE PHONE.

Narrative: WE WERE SEQUENCED NICELY BEHIND AN ACR ON APCH TO RWY 01 SDF. WE WERE ASKED BY APCH IF WE HAD TFC IN SIGHT. WE REPLIED THAT WE DID. WE WERE CLRED FOR VIS RWY 01. THEN AT ABOUT 7200' MSL, ABOUT 10-12 MI SSW FROM END OF RWY 01 I WAS DIRECTED TO TURN TO 180 DEG HDG (AND CLRED TO 2400'). AFTER 5 MI ON THIS HDG I WAS TURNED BACK TO THE ARPT AND RECLRED FOR A VIS. IN OPS I CALLED APCH CTL TO ASK WHY I WAS TURNED AWAY FROM THE ARPT. I WAS GIVEN TO A PERSON WHO IDENTED HIMSELF AS THE SUPVR ON DUTY. I IDENTED MYSELF AS THE CAPT OF FLT ACR X AND ASKED WHY I WAS TURNED TO THE S. HE SAID, 'WELL, THE CTLR DID NOT THINK YOU HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT, AND IN MY OPINION, YOU WERE AT 7500' AND TOO HIGH TO MAKE THE APCH.' I ASKED HIM, 'SIR, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU HAVE IN THE MLG?' HE SAID 'IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS SHIT (AND ANOTHER UNINTELLIGIBLE COMMENT),' AND SMASHED THE PHONE INTO THE RECEIVER AND HUNG UP! I DON'T LIKE THIS KIND OF TREATMENT AND SERIOUSLY DOUBT IF A MAN WHO CAN'T CONTROL HIMSELF ANY BETTER THAN THIS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SUPERVISE OTHERS. THIS TYPE OF ACTION WAS INCONSIDERATE AND TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR. ADDITIONALLY, IT DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. DOES THE SUPVR OF APCH HAVE THE LATITUDE AND AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS ON HOW TO FLY MY ACFT? PLEASE CHK THE TAPES AND PROVIDE MY ANSWERS AS TO WHY I WAS TREATED THIS WAY IN FLT AND ON THE PHONE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR ASKED THAT ASRS CHK THE TAPES OF INCIDENT AND PROVIDE HIM WITH ANSWERS OF RADAR VECTOR AND TREATMENT ON THE PHONE. ANALYST TOLD RPTR THAT TAPES ARE ONLY HELD FOR 15 DAYS AND ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE. IT WAS SUGGESTED DURING THE CONVERSATION THAT RPTR CALL THE FAC WHENEVER THERE IS A QUESTION ON ATC HANDLING, AND IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH RESPONSE, THEN HE COULD ELEVATE IT TO THE FAC MGR.

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

Pilot reporter complains about radar vector on final approach and subsequent comments made by the ATC supervisor over the phone.