Narrative:

On a visual approach to cak runway 19; our aircraft was vectored very close to runway 19 and cleared for the visual. When we recognized we would not be in a safe position to land; we notified tower that we would need to perform a left 270 degree turn to line up for final. Due to ATC radio congestion; the first opportunity to notify tower of our go-around was delayed due to a conversation on tower frequency followed by clearing an aircraft to takeoff on runway 23.when tower responded to our request for a left 270 degree turn to align with final for runway 19; they told us; 'you need to give us more of a heads up with this thing company;' then told us to turn left immediately. Looking left there was traffic. A blimp was flying about 2;100 feet on a six mile final for runway 19. We were at 2;700 feet so an immediate left turn would have been directly into the blimp so we elected to continue on our heading.we notified ATC we would not be turning left; but were stepped on by another transmission on ATC frequency. They queried our desire so we said we would extend and turn 'right' back toward runway 19. There was no response from ATC tower frequency. There was another query we made to tower without a response. At this point I felt we were approaching seven miles from the airfield; so I elected to contact approach and get vectors back to a final for 19.seeing both the confusion with tower and the blimp traffic extended off the active runway final; I felt radar approach control was the safest course of action to place our aircraft in a position to land. Approach control vectored us around the blimp on a six mile final for 19 at 2;000 feet and we landed runway 19. Ground control notified us we needed to call ATC due to a possible flight deviation. We complied and called the ATC control officer.if ATC is going to vector aircraft very tight to a field for a particular reason; like 'this will be close vectors to a visual runway 19 due to a blimp on a six-mile final on glide path.' if not in a position to land safely; notify ATC as soon as possible; but maybe ATC should not use shaming language like; 'you need to give us more of a heads up with this thing.' that language is non-standard and not effectual in increasing situational awareness or instructive to pilots; whose main concern is safely placing the aircraft in a position to land.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Flight crew reported executing a go-around from an unstabilized approach to CAK airport. Communication difficulties due to frequency congestion were cited as a factor.

Narrative: On a visual approach to CAK Runway 19; our aircraft was vectored very close to Runway 19 and cleared for the visual. When we recognized we would not be in a safe position to land; we notified Tower that we would need to perform a left 270 degree turn to line up for final. Due to ATC radio congestion; the first opportunity to notify Tower of our go-around was delayed due to a conversation on Tower frequency followed by clearing an aircraft to takeoff on Runway 23.When Tower responded to our request for a left 270 degree turn to align with final for Runway 19; they told us; 'You need to give us more of a heads up with this thing Company;' then told us to turn left immediately. Looking left there was traffic. A blimp was flying about 2;100 feet on a six mile final for Runway 19. We were at 2;700 feet so an immediate left turn would have been directly into the blimp so we elected to continue on our heading.We notified ATC we would not be turning left; but were stepped on by another transmission on ATC frequency. They queried our desire so we said we would extend and turn 'right' back toward Runway 19. There was no response from ATC Tower frequency. There was another query we made to Tower without a response. At this point I felt we were approaching seven miles from the airfield; so I elected to contact approach and get vectors back to a final for 19.Seeing both the confusion with Tower and the blimp traffic extended off the active runway final; I felt Radar Approach Control was the safest course of action to place our aircraft in a position to land. Approach Control vectored us around the blimp on a six mile final for 19 at 2;000 feet and we landed Runway 19. Ground Control notified us we needed to call ATC due to a possible flight deviation. We complied and called the ATC control officer.If ATC is going to vector aircraft very tight to a field for a particular reason; like 'this will be close vectors to a visual Runway 19 due to a blimp on a six-mile final on glide path.' If not in a position to land safely; notify ATC as soon as possible; but maybe ATC should not use shaming language like; 'You need to give us more of a heads up with this thing.' That language is non-standard and not effectual in increasing situational awareness or instructive to pilots; whose main concern is safely placing the aircraft in a position to land.

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.