Narrative:

Following training in holds in VFR conditions I was returning to osu, where the aircraft is based, with the student under the hood. The student was responsible for communication with ATC at my direction. About 3 mi northwest of delaware airport the student contact cmh approach on 124.2 and requested a practice ILS to 9R at osu. The approach controller assigned a transponder code, but reported that he was not able to see us on radar. The student executed an assigned 90 degree turn to 270 degrees and the controller reported radar contact. Normal vectoring to the final approach course for the ILS 9R at osu followed. We were cleared for the approach 3 mi from fuller, assigned altitude was 3000' till established on the localizer, heading 100 degrees, maintain VFR. The clearance did not include the handoff to osu tower. Inside the OM but still west of the I270 outer belt, we had still not received instructions to contact osu tower and I instructed the student to call ATC and request permission to change frequency. A new controller voice questioned, 'who is calling for a frequency change to osu tower?', and the student repeated the request. The controller responded with 'frequency change approved, radar service terminated, squawk 1200.' osu tower frequency 118.8 was very busy with 2 aircraft in the traffic pattern for the north runway and 1 apparently inbound to 9R. I could not see the traffic for 9R. The tower did not respond to the first 2 reports that the student made that we were inbound on the ILS. I elected to abort the approach at this point rather than continue west/O tower contact and west/O visibility contact with possible conflicting landing traffic. As we left the air traffic area to the northwest we heard osu tower report us as traffic on the ILS being vectored by cmh approach. If we had continued with the ILS, we would have been on the ground by the time that transmission was made. The student contacted osu tower from a normal VFR reporting point over O'shaugnessy dam, explained that we had aborted the ILS approach and received instructions for a normal VFR approach to 9R. After landing we were questioned by the osu ground controller about why we had aborted the ILS approach and our position at the time of the decision to abort. Some factors which seemed to be influential in the final abort action were: 1) the inoperative transponder--the cmh approach controller did not have the normal transponder did not have the normal transponder return that he would expect for an aircraft on the ILS to osu; 2) the probable changeover of approach controllers between the time of the issuing of the clearance and the handoff to osu tower; and 3) congestion on osu tower frequency.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR AND TRAINEE ON ILS APCH UNABLE TO CONTACT TWR. APCH HAS CANCELLED IFR CLRNC. OTHER TRAFFIC ON APCH NOT SIGHTED. ABORTED APCH.

Narrative: FOLLOWING TRNING IN HOLDS IN VFR CONDITIONS I WAS RETURNING TO OSU, WHERE THE ACFT IS BASED, WITH THE STUDENT UNDER THE HOOD. THE STUDENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR COM WITH ATC AT MY DIRECTION. ABOUT 3 MI NW OF DELAWARE ARPT THE STUDENT CONTACT CMH APCH ON 124.2 AND REQUESTED A PRACTICE ILS TO 9R AT OSU. THE APCH CTLR ASSIGNED A XPONDER CODE, BUT RPTED THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE US ON RADAR. THE STUDENT EXECUTED AN ASSIGNED 90 DEG TURN TO 270 DEGS AND THE CTLR RPTED RADAR CONTACT. NORMAL VECTORING TO THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR THE ILS 9R AT OSU FOLLOWED. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH 3 MI FROM FULLER, ASSIGNED ALT WAS 3000' TILL ESTABLISHED ON THE LOC, HDG 100 DEGS, MAINTAIN VFR. THE CLRNC DID NOT INCLUDE THE HDOF TO OSU TWR. INSIDE THE OM BUT STILL W OF THE I270 OUTER BELT, WE HAD STILL NOT RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTACT OSU TWR AND I INSTRUCTED THE STUDENT TO CALL ATC AND REQUEST PERMISSION TO CHANGE FREQ. A NEW CTLR VOICE QUESTIONED, 'WHO IS CALLING FOR A FREQ CHANGE TO OSU TWR?', AND THE STUDENT REPEATED THE REQUEST. THE CTLR RESPONDED WITH 'FREQ CHANGE APPROVED, RADAR SVC TERMINATED, SQUAWK 1200.' OSU TWR FREQ 118.8 WAS VERY BUSY WITH 2 ACFT IN THE TFC PATTERN FOR THE N RWY AND 1 APPARENTLY INBND TO 9R. I COULD NOT SEE THE TFC FOR 9R. THE TWR DID NOT RESPOND TO THE FIRST 2 RPTS THAT THE STUDENT MADE THAT WE WERE INBND ON THE ILS. I ELECTED TO ABORT THE APCH AT THIS POINT RATHER THAN CONTINUE W/O TWR CONTACT AND W/O VIS CONTACT WITH POSSIBLE CONFLICTING LNDG TFC. AS WE LEFT THE ATA TO THE NW WE HEARD OSU TWR RPT US AS TFC ON THE ILS BEING VECTORED BY CMH APCH. IF WE HAD CONTINUED WITH THE ILS, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE GND BY THE TIME THAT XMISSION WAS MADE. THE STUDENT CONTACTED OSU TWR FROM A NORMAL VFR RPTING POINT OVER O'SHAUGNESSY DAM, EXPLAINED THAT WE HAD ABORTED THE ILS APCH AND RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS FOR A NORMAL VFR APCH TO 9R. AFTER LNDG WE WERE QUESTIONED BY THE OSU GND CTLR ABOUT WHY WE HAD ABORTED THE ILS APCH AND OUR POS AT THE TIME OF THE DECISION TO ABORT. SOME FACTORS WHICH SEEMED TO BE INFLUENTIAL IN THE FINAL ABORT ACTION WERE: 1) THE INOP XPONDER--THE CMH APCH CTLR DID NOT HAVE THE NORMAL XPONDER DID NOT HAVE THE NORMAL XPONDER RETURN THAT HE WOULD EXPECT FOR AN ACFT ON THE ILS TO OSU; 2) THE PROBABLE CHANGEOVER OF APCH CTLRS BTWN THE TIME OF THE ISSUING OF THE CLRNC AND THE HDOF TO OSU TWR; AND 3) CONGESTION ON OSU TWR FREQ.

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.