Narrative:

On final leg of multiple stop, IFR training flight that began at XA00, was handed off from dtw approach to mtc approach. Descending to 6000 ft, heading 350 degrees assigned, checked in with current ATIS and requested vectors for initial told to descend to 3000 ft, turn to 270 degrees and report field in sight. As we got in closer, haze, angle of sun (sunset XA36), and rain shower on other side of field made it difficult to pick up runway. PF (and PIC) said he could not do initial with existing conditions. Approach told us to maintain 3200 ft due to traffic at 2200 ft, rogered new altitude and told control we had been given 3000 ft. Still not seeing field, asked approach if we could continue 270 degree heading to pick up TACAN final. Were given heading 250 degrees, told approach we didn't need '80 mi' final (we were at 10 DME), given a 240 degree heading? And called field in sight. As we picked up runway, were told to contact tower. PF turned to intercept visual instead of a TACAN final. Upon switching, tower was in steady transmission due to a flight of 2 fgts, and 1 mlt in the VFR pattern and a large tanker being controled in IFR pattern. Called 5 mi final with gear and noticed mlt was coming right at us at 1-2 O'clock. We were told we were behind mlt. Told them we would turn in behind him. 'Booming' voice came on and told us we were now ahead of mlt. First fgt rolled long, so second fgt and then us, were directed by tower to go around. On downwind we were told we were #2 behind the tanker on a 8 mi final. Asked if we should 'extend to dtw.' was told to do left 360 degree turn. After maneuver was cleared to land. Asked if tanker was a full stop. Tower said yes. Spaced accordingly and then watched tanker touch-and-go. Checking in with duty office after post-flight, we were told to call tower. Talked to watch supervisor. He then told us to call RAPCON supervisor. We did. Both agencies were upset at '80 mi final' and 'extend to dtw' comments. Both assumed we were still going into ovhd first directly and then using a TACAN final. Apologized for comments. Fatigue may have been a factor. Another factor was being preconditioned to poor handling (frequently long finals without other aircraft present, being put behind USAF aircraft at USAF field in 1 case when they were 25 mi away for initial and we were on downwind) by local ATC. Another factor was controllers/tower personnel under training. An early call telling us we had to fly a long TACAN final 'due to traffic' could have avoided it all. This is the mark of senior controller. (The watch supervisor said he was too busy to give it.) if things were that busy, tower should have closed the pattern to the number of aircraft it was capable of handling. 4 independent flight groups is a lot for this facility based on 8.5 yrs of flying here.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLT TURNS ONTO A VISUAL FINAL APCH WHEN ATC EXPECTED A TACAN FINAL APCH.

Narrative: ON FINAL LEG OF MULTIPLE STOP, IFR TRAINING FLT THAT BEGAN AT XA00, WAS HANDED OFF FROM DTW APCH TO MTC APCH. DSNDING TO 6000 FT, HDG 350 DEGS ASSIGNED, CHKED IN WITH CURRENT ATIS AND REQUESTED VECTORS FOR INITIAL TOLD TO DSND TO 3000 FT, TURN TO 270 DEGS AND RPT FIELD IN SIGHT. AS WE GOT IN CLOSER, HAZE, ANGLE OF SUN (SUNSET XA36), AND RAIN SHOWER ON OTHER SIDE OF FIELD MADE IT DIFFICULT TO PICK UP RWY. PF (AND PIC) SAID HE COULD NOT DO INITIAL WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS. APCH TOLD US TO MAINTAIN 3200 FT DUE TO TFC AT 2200 FT, ROGERED NEW ALT AND TOLD CTL WE HAD BEEN GIVEN 3000 FT. STILL NOT SEEING FIELD, ASKED APCH IF WE COULD CONTINUE 270 DEG HDG TO PICK UP TACAN FINAL. WERE GIVEN HDG 250 DEGS, TOLD APCH WE DIDN'T NEED '80 MI' FINAL (WE WERE AT 10 DME), GIVEN A 240 DEG HDG? AND CALLED FIELD IN SIGHT. AS WE PICKED UP RWY, WERE TOLD TO CONTACT TWR. PF TURNED TO INTERCEPT VISUAL INSTEAD OF A TACAN FINAL. UPON SWITCHING, TWR WAS IN STEADY XMISSION DUE TO A FLT OF 2 FGTS, AND 1 MLT IN THE VFR PATTERN AND A LARGE TANKER BEING CTLED IN IFR PATTERN. CALLED 5 MI FINAL WITH GEAR AND NOTICED MLT WAS COMING RIGHT AT US AT 1-2 O'CLOCK. WE WERE TOLD WE WERE BEHIND MLT. TOLD THEM WE WOULD TURN IN BEHIND HIM. 'BOOMING' VOICE CAME ON AND TOLD US WE WERE NOW AHEAD OF MLT. FIRST FGT ROLLED LONG, SO SECOND FGT AND THEN US, WERE DIRECTED BY TWR TO GAR. ON DOWNWIND WE WERE TOLD WE WERE #2 BEHIND THE TANKER ON A 8 MI FINAL. ASKED IF WE SHOULD 'EXTEND TO DTW.' WAS TOLD TO DO L 360 DEG TURN. AFTER MANEUVER WAS CLRED TO LAND. ASKED IF TANKER WAS A FULL STOP. TWR SAID YES. SPACED ACCORDINGLY AND THEN WATCHED TANKER TOUCH-AND-GO. CHKING IN WITH DUTY OFFICE AFTER POST-FLT, WE WERE TOLD TO CALL TWR. TALKED TO WATCH SUPVR. HE THEN TOLD US TO CALL RAPCON SUPVR. WE DID. BOTH AGENCIES WERE UPSET AT '80 MI FINAL' AND 'EXTEND TO DTW' COMMENTS. BOTH ASSUMED WE WERE STILL GOING INTO OVHD FIRST DIRECTLY AND THEN USING A TACAN FINAL. APOLOGIZED FOR COMMENTS. FATIGUE MAY HAVE BEEN A FACTOR. ANOTHER FACTOR WAS BEING PRECONDITIONED TO POOR HANDLING (FREQUENTLY LONG FINALS WITHOUT OTHER ACFT PRESENT, BEING PUT BEHIND USAF ACFT AT USAF FIELD IN 1 CASE WHEN THEY WERE 25 MI AWAY FOR INITIAL AND WE WERE ON DOWNWIND) BY LCL ATC. ANOTHER FACTOR WAS CTLRS/TWR PERSONNEL UNDER TRAINING. AN EARLY CALL TELLING US WE HAD TO FLY A LONG TACAN FINAL 'DUE TO TFC' COULD HAVE AVOIDED IT ALL. THIS IS THE MARK OF SENIOR CTLR. (THE WATCH SUPVR SAID HE WAS TOO BUSY TO GIVE IT.) IF THINGS WERE THAT BUSY, TWR SHOULD HAVE CLOSED THE PATTERN TO THE NUMBER OF ACFT IT WAS CAPABLE OF HANDLING. 4 INDEPENDENT FLT GROUPS IS A LOT FOR THIS FACILITY BASED ON 8.5 YRS OF FLYING HERE.

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.