Narrative:

The occurrence was a communication breakdown resulting in misunderstanding between the controller and pilot. Because of this communication breakdown the controller felt the pilot was being difficult and the pilot did not receive the necessary information to understand the controller's intentions. Muskegon approach control was contacted and given an advisory of a military fgt X transition from the s-n between 2500' MSL and 4500' MSL through the muskegon TRSA. After radar contact was established, ATC instructed the fgt X to maintain at or above 3500' MSL through the TRSA. Area of TRSA fgt X was transitioning had a base of 2500' MSL and a top of 8000' MSL. Fgt X responded to ATC stating desire to maintain at or below 2500' MSL remaining below the TRSA. After a long pause ATC instructed the fgt X to turn left to a heading of 270 degree. This is the point where the communication breakdown began as the controller had made 3 radio xmissions that the fgt X crew never received. This resulted in the controller thinking the fgt X pilot was ignoring him and being difficult, while at the same time the pilot had no knowledge of the controllers air traffic situation and felt he was being vectored for no apparent reason. The fgt X pilot having had over 9 yrs experience as a USAF/FAA air traffic controller was quite puzzled as to what the controller's plan was as there was no reason stated for the vector to the heading of 270 degree. The fgt X pilot then advised ATC again of VFR status. ATC did not acknowledge this transmission and proceeded to give a control instruction to another aircraft, this was the first time the fgt X pilot heard the controller talking to an small transport Y aircraft on VHF. The fgt X pilot suspected some type of confusion at this point and executed a climb to 4500' MSL in an attempt to maintain VFR at or above 3500' MSL while transitioning through the remainder of the TRSA. ATC then issued the fgt X traffic and the fgt X reported the traffic in sight. ATC told the fgt X to maintain visibility sep from the traffic and the fgt X again reminded ATC of being VFR (see and avoid status). The small transport Y traffic was at least 2000' vertically separated from the fgt X and in no way a factor. The fgt X then queried ATC as to the TRSA being voluntary participation and vectors being at the discretion of the pilot. ATC then claimed that fgt X pilot violated air traffic area even though when asked of fgt X position relative to air traffic area boundary, ATC replied 5 mi. Before fgt X began climb to 4500' MSL fgt X was laterally outside air traffic area and after executing climb fgt X was 800' above the top of the air traffic area's upper limit of 3628'. ATC asked the fgt X where we were based and the fgt X replied 'the only fgt X unit in michigan.' shortly afterwards the fgt X advised ATC of intentions to descend from 4500' MSL back to 2500' MSL and apologized for any inconvenience that may have been caused as a result of the situation. End result of the situation was ATC calling fgt X unit and disgruntled controller blowing the whole situation out of proportion west/O even being aware of the breakdown in communication. The ATC facility threatened to violate the fgt X based on ignoring a control instruction, violating the air traffic area, and being in conflict with another aircraft. ATC made these accusations west/O even being aware of the fgt X altitude as ATC stated they were not picking up the fgt X mode 'C'. Muskegon approach control's vindictive attitude west/O knowing the facts had not only served no constructive purpose, but has also placed the fgt X pilot's military flying career in jeopardy. In summary, I believe this situation occurred as a result of a communication failure and the 'controllers against the pilots' type attitude. My suggestion as to how to prevent a situation like this again would be to first try to discourage the previously mentioned attitude and to encourage pilots and controllers to try to be more understanding of each others position. As to the xmissions the fgt X did not receive, I can only suspect the controller was transmitting on VHF or the wrong frequency as the fgt X crew did not hear any civilian radio xmissions earlier in this scenario. In conclusion, I am submitting this report with hopes that something positive can come out of a bad situation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter admitted he wanted to try and fly a terrain following route that he had planned on his own and was checking the timing on this route. It was not an official route or mission, just one that he wanted to do. Definite miscom problem, but ATC and unit commander are not taking it lightly.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MIL PLT ARGUES WITH APCH CTLR OVER VECTORS AND ATC INSTRUCTIONS WHILE ON TRAINING FLT. ATC PRESSING ACTION AGAINST MIL PLT.

Narrative: THE OCCURRENCE WAS A COM BREAKDOWN RESULTING IN MISUNDERSTANDING BTWN THE CTLR AND PLT. BECAUSE OF THIS COM BREAKDOWN THE CTLR FELT THE PLT WAS BEING DIFFICULT AND THE PLT DID NOT RECEIVE THE NECESSARY INFO TO UNDERSTAND THE CTLR'S INTENTIONS. MUSKEGON APCH CTL WAS CONTACTED AND GIVEN AN ADVISORY OF A MIL FGT X TRANSITION FROM THE S-N BTWN 2500' MSL AND 4500' MSL THROUGH THE MUSKEGON TRSA. AFTER RADAR CONTACT WAS ESTABLISHED, ATC INSTRUCTED THE FGT X TO MAINTAIN AT OR ABOVE 3500' MSL THROUGH THE TRSA. AREA OF TRSA FGT X WAS TRANSITIONING HAD A BASE OF 2500' MSL AND A TOP OF 8000' MSL. FGT X RESPONDED TO ATC STATING DESIRE TO MAINTAIN AT OR BELOW 2500' MSL REMAINING BELOW THE TRSA. AFTER A LONG PAUSE ATC INSTRUCTED THE FGT X TO TURN L TO A HDG OF 270 DEG. THIS IS THE POINT WHERE THE COM BREAKDOWN BEGAN AS THE CTLR HAD MADE 3 RADIO XMISSIONS THAT THE FGT X CREW NEVER RECEIVED. THIS RESULTED IN THE CTLR THINKING THE FGT X PLT WAS IGNORING HIM AND BEING DIFFICULT, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THE PLT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CTLRS AIR TFC SITUATION AND FELT HE WAS BEING VECTORED FOR NO APPARENT REASON. THE FGT X PLT HAVING HAD OVER 9 YRS EXPERIENCE AS A USAF/FAA AIR TFC CTLR WAS QUITE PUZZLED AS TO WHAT THE CTLR'S PLAN WAS AS THERE WAS NO REASON STATED FOR THE VECTOR TO THE HDG OF 270 DEG. THE FGT X PLT THEN ADVISED ATC AGAIN OF VFR STATUS. ATC DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS XMISSION AND PROCEEDED TO GIVE A CTL INSTRUCTION TO ANOTHER ACFT, THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THE FGT X PLT HEARD THE CTLR TALKING TO AN SMT Y ACFT ON VHF. THE FGT X PLT SUSPECTED SOME TYPE OF CONFUSION AT THIS POINT AND EXECUTED A CLB TO 4500' MSL IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN VFR AT OR ABOVE 3500' MSL WHILE TRANSITIONING THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THE TRSA. ATC THEN ISSUED THE FGT X TFC AND THE FGT X RPTED THE TFC IN SIGHT. ATC TOLD THE FGT X TO MAINTAIN VIS SEP FROM THE TFC AND THE FGT X AGAIN REMINDED ATC OF BEING VFR (SEE AND AVOID STATUS). THE SMT Y TFC WAS AT LEAST 2000' VERTICALLY SEPARATED FROM THE FGT X AND IN NO WAY A FACTOR. THE FGT X THEN QUERIED ATC AS TO THE TRSA BEING VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND VECTORS BEING AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLT. ATC THEN CLAIMED THAT FGT X PLT VIOLATED ATA EVEN THOUGH WHEN ASKED OF FGT X POS RELATIVE TO ATA BOUNDARY, ATC REPLIED 5 MI. BEFORE FGT X BEGAN CLB TO 4500' MSL FGT X WAS LATERALLY OUTSIDE ATA AND AFTER EXECUTING CLB FGT X WAS 800' ABOVE THE TOP OF THE ATA'S UPPER LIMIT OF 3628'. ATC ASKED THE FGT X WHERE WE WERE BASED AND THE FGT X REPLIED 'THE ONLY FGT X UNIT IN MICHIGAN.' SHORTLY AFTERWARDS THE FGT X ADVISED ATC OF INTENTIONS TO DSND FROM 4500' MSL BACK TO 2500' MSL AND APOLOGIZED FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED AS A RESULT OF THE SITUATION. END RESULT OF THE SITUATION WAS ATC CALLING FGT X UNIT AND DISGRUNTLED CTLR BLOWING THE WHOLE SITUATION OUT OF PROPORTION W/O EVEN BEING AWARE OF THE BREAKDOWN IN COM. THE ATC FAC THREATENED TO VIOLATE THE FGT X BASED ON IGNORING A CTL INSTRUCTION, VIOLATING THE ATA, AND BEING IN CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER ACFT. ATC MADE THESE ACCUSATIONS W/O EVEN BEING AWARE OF THE FGT X ALT AS ATC STATED THEY WERE NOT PICKING UP THE FGT X MODE 'C'. MUSKEGON APCH CTL'S VINDICTIVE ATTITUDE W/O KNOWING THE FACTS HAD NOT ONLY SERVED NO CONSTRUCTIVE PURPOSE, BUT HAS ALSO PLACED THE FGT X PLT'S MIL FLYING CAREER IN JEOPARDY. IN SUMMARY, I BELIEVE THIS SITUATION OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF A COM FAILURE AND THE 'CTLRS AGAINST THE PLTS' TYPE ATTITUDE. MY SUGGESTION AS TO HOW TO PREVENT A SITUATION LIKE THIS AGAIN WOULD BE TO FIRST TRY TO DISCOURAGE THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ATTITUDE AND TO ENCOURAGE PLTS AND CTLRS TO TRY TO BE MORE UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OTHERS POS. AS TO THE XMISSIONS THE FGT X DID NOT RECEIVE, I CAN ONLY SUSPECT THE CTLR WAS XMITTING ON VHF OR THE WRONG FREQ AS THE FGT X CREW DID NOT HEAR ANY CIVILIAN RADIO XMISSIONS EARLIER IN THIS SCENARIO. IN CONCLUSION, I AM SUBMITTING THIS RPT WITH HOPES THAT SOMETHING POSITIVE CAN COME OUT OF A BAD SITUATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR ADMITTED HE WANTED TO TRY AND FLY A TERRAIN FOLLOWING RTE THAT HE HAD PLANNED ON HIS OWN AND WAS CHKING THE TIMING ON THIS RTE. IT WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL RTE OR MISSION, JUST ONE THAT HE WANTED TO DO. DEFINITE MISCOM PROB, BUT ATC AND UNIT COMMANDER ARE NOT TAKING IT LIGHTLY.

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.