Air carrier being vectored, cleared to maintain altitude and speed when passing through altitude ass...

Attributes
ACN	191637
Time
Date	199110
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : cvg
State Reference	OH
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3200 msl bound upper : 3500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : cvg tracon : cvg
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 11000 flight time type : 300
ASRS Report	191637
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

While being vectored to a visual to 18L, cvg, ATC gave us clearance from 5000 ft to 3200 ft as we turned to intercept final. Simultaneously with passing 3500 ft, the controller instructed us to 'maintain 3500 till 8 DME (ILS DME), maintain 180 KTS to marker, cleared for visual'. Since we were passing 3500 at the time, in a descending left turn, I replied 'unable'. (Turns out he meant to say 3200 ft.) the controller immediately took both offense at, and issue with, my refusal. 'Maybe you'd better call us on the ground 'cause your company has agreed to this procedure for noise abatement'. I declined again, pointing out his request would take me well above GS, necessitating descent rates of 1500-2000 FPM, while slowing from 180 KIAS, to catch the GS from above. All this on a runway known for false GPWS terrain warnings and unreliable radar altimeter readings over the river. Ironically, I was then cleared lower (3000) and issued clearance to intercept GS. Why this was less noise offensive than riding GS down from 3500 ft, I don't know. Seems the 'agreed upon' procedure for noise abatement is to hold 3200 ft till 8 DME on the ILS 18L DME. Normally assigned 180 KIAS to marker. This causes flying through GS, then catching it from above. Since our company dictates on GS by 1000 ft AGL as part of stabilized approach, this means high rates of descent (at least 1500-2000 FPM) to accomplish. Bad news anytime, but especially on this runway for the reasons already stated. Just as importantly: it seems a bad precedent for ATC to use 'your company agreed to it' to pressure a crew that has declined any procedure, particularly a voluntary one such as a visual. In today's atmosphere, when all parties to an incident/accident scurry to avoid blame, there is no room for a controller to pressure a crew for any reason other than immediate safety, certainly not noise abatement. Wouldn't sound too good at the investigation. Moreover, how can ATC and management agree to a procedure that the line pilot hasn't even heard of, much less had a chance to think through and evaluate.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR BEING VECTORED, CLRED TO MAINTAIN ALT AND SPD WHEN PASSING THROUGH ALT ASSIGNED. REPLIED UNABLE, CTLR TOOK OFFENSE AND BECAME OFFENSIVE.

Narrative: WHILE BEING VECTORED TO A VISUAL TO 18L, CVG, ATC GAVE US CLRNC FROM 5000 FT TO 3200 FT AS WE TURNED TO INTERCEPT FINAL. SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH PASSING 3500 FT, THE CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO 'MAINTAIN 3500 TILL 8 DME (ILS DME), MAINTAIN 180 KTS TO MARKER, CLRED FOR VISUAL'. SINCE WE WERE PASSING 3500 AT THE TIME, IN A DSNDING L TURN, I REPLIED 'UNABLE'. (TURNS OUT HE MEANT TO SAY 3200 FT.) THE CTLR IMMEDIATELY TOOK BOTH OFFENSE AT, AND ISSUE WITH, MY REFUSAL. 'MAYBE YOU'D BETTER CALL US ON THE GND 'CAUSE YOUR COMPANY HAS AGREED TO THIS PROC FOR NOISE ABATEMENT'. I DECLINED AGAIN, POINTING OUT HIS REQUEST WOULD TAKE ME WELL ABOVE GS, NECESSITATING DSCNT RATES OF 1500-2000 FPM, WHILE SLOWING FROM 180 KIAS, TO CATCH THE GS FROM ABOVE. ALL THIS ON A RWY KNOWN FOR FALSE GPWS TERRAIN WARNINGS AND UNRELIABLE RADAR ALTIMETER READINGS OVER THE RIVER. IRONICALLY, I WAS THEN CLRED LOWER (3000) AND ISSUED CLRNC TO INTERCEPT GS. WHY THIS WAS LESS NOISE OFFENSIVE THAN RIDING GS DOWN FROM 3500 FT, I DON'T KNOW. SEEMS THE 'AGREED UPON' PROC FOR NOISE ABATEMENT IS TO HOLD 3200 FT TILL 8 DME ON THE ILS 18L DME. NORMALLY ASSIGNED 180 KIAS TO MARKER. THIS CAUSES FLYING THROUGH GS, THEN CATCHING IT FROM ABOVE. SINCE OUR COMPANY DICTATES ON GS BY 1000 FT AGL AS PART OF STABILIZED APCH, THIS MEANS HIGH RATES OF DSCNT (AT LEAST 1500-2000 FPM) TO ACCOMPLISH. BAD NEWS ANYTIME, BUT ESPECIALLY ON THIS RWY FOR THE REASONS ALREADY STATED. JUST AS IMPORTANTLY: IT SEEMS A BAD PRECEDENT FOR ATC TO USE 'YOUR COMPANY AGREED TO IT' TO PRESSURE A CREW THAT HAS DECLINED ANY PROC, PARTICULARLY A VOLUNTARY ONE SUCH AS A VISUAL. IN TODAY'S ATMOSPHERE, WHEN ALL PARTIES TO AN INCIDENT/ACCIDENT SCURRY TO AVOID BLAME, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR A CTLR TO PRESSURE A CREW FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN IMMEDIATE SAFETY, CERTAINLY NOT NOISE ABATEMENT. WOULDN'T SOUND TOO GOOD AT THE INVESTIGATION. MOREOVER, HOW CAN ATC AND MGMNT AGREE TO A PROC THAT THE LINE PLT HASN'T EVEN HEARD OF, MUCH LESS HAD A CHANCE TO THINK THROUGH AND EVALUATE.

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.

Air carrier being vectored, cleared to maintain altitude and speed when passing through altitude assigned. Replied unable, controller took offense and became offensive.