Narrative:

On my initial contact with lax TRACON, my copilot requested the ILS 25L approach. The approach controller did not acknowledge our request and instructed us to turn right and intercept the runway 24 localizer. I told my copilot to repeat our request instead of reading back the instruction. The approach controller again ignored! Our request and instructed us to turn right and intercept the 24R localizer. I then told my copilot to use the following: 'in the interest of enhanced flight safety, we are requesting the ILS runway 25L approach.' the approach controller, once again, for the third time, did not acknowledge our request. Instead, there was a pause in any further communications for about 20 seconds. He continued to ignore us and gave several other flts instructions. I then had my copilot initiate a transmission in an effort to clarify our situation. The approach controller responded by clearing us for the runway 25L ILS approach. This is not the first time I have experienced lax ATC reluctance to respond to my requests but has been an ongoing problem for the past several months. It is my understanding that my repeating a request indicates to ATC that I do need it. The approach controllers at lax have evidently forgotten this and need to be reminded. The PIC rightfully determines the kind of approach and the landing runway for his flight, not the ATC controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF AN ACR WDB SAYS HE HAS TROUBLE GETTING HIS DESIRED LNDG RWY AT LAX.

Narrative: ON MY INITIAL CONTACT WITH LAX TRACON, MY COPLT REQUESTED THE ILS 25L APCH. THE APCH CTLR DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE OUR REQUEST AND INSTRUCTED US TO TURN R AND INTERCEPT THE RWY 24 LOC. I TOLD MY COPLT TO REPEAT OUR REQUEST INSTEAD OF READING BACK THE INSTRUCTION. THE APCH CTLR AGAIN IGNORED! OUR REQUEST AND INSTRUCTED US TO TURN RIGHT AND INTERCEPT THE 24R LOC. I THEN TOLD MY COPLT TO USE THE FOLLOWING: 'IN THE INTEREST OF ENHANCED FLT SAFETY, WE ARE REQUESTING THE ILS RWY 25L APCH.' THE APCH CTLR, ONCE AGAIN, FOR THE THIRD TIME, DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE OUR REQUEST. INSTEAD, THERE WAS A PAUSE IN ANY FURTHER COMS FOR ABOUT 20 SECONDS. HE CONTINUED TO IGNORE US AND GAVE SEVERAL OTHER FLTS INSTRUCTIONS. I THEN HAD MY COPLT INITIATE A XMISSION IN AN EFFORT TO CLARIFY OUR SITUATION. THE APCH CTLR RESPONDED BY CLRING US FOR THE RWY 25L ILS APCH. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EXPERIENCED LAX ATC RELUCTANCE TO RESPOND TO MY REQUESTS BUT HAS BEEN AN ONGOING PROBLEM FOR THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MY REPEATING A REQUEST INDICATES TO ATC THAT I DO NEED IT. THE APCH CTLRS AT LAX HAVE EVIDENTLY FORGOTTEN THIS AND NEED TO BE REMINDED. THE PIC RIGHTFULLY DETERMINES THE KIND OF APCH AND THE LNDG RWY FOR HIS FLT, NOT THE ATC CTLR.

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.