Narrative:

I was giving advanced cross country instruction to a student on a 3 leg trip from osh to rfd to C32 to osh. On the inbound to rfd, the ATIS stated that rfd approach should be called on 120.37, which we did, but this turned out to be ZAU. The center controller stated that we should contact the tower on 118.3 when we were '10 mi out.' we attempted contact numerous times on 118.3 and 121.9 but received no replies. I then contacted jvl tower, explained the situation and after a brief delay was told to attempt recontact on 118.3. On this attempt, rfd tower answered and we were told to report on a 2 mi final for runway 19. Upon this report the local controller answered us but used a different registration number than ours. I then asked if we were cleared to land, upon which the controller stated, 'negative as we had not reported the 2 mi final.' when I said we had reported final but he had answered another aircraft, he replied with 'say your position now.' I said, '1 mi final for runway 19.' he did not respond to this and I had to press him further for landing clearance. In my opinion, this person does not belong in the ATC system and is a hazard in it. We were extremely busy trying to establish communications with this facility, at the same time running descent and landing checklist, descending and avoiding the class C area. Add to this the controller's lack of concern and game playing on final approach, along with other traffic, and the stage for an accident is set. The controller never once got our call sign correct despite my correction with every transmission. When pressed for landing clearance he deliberately avoided giving it and we were about to go around when we were finally cleared. There is no valid reason I can think of that we should repeatedly prompt a controller to answer his radio or give us required instructions. He was not that busy. It was necessary for us to expedite descent and to circle in order to avoid the class C airspace. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he did not follow up on this incident because he has found that contacting local personnel usually does not have very satisfactory results. He believes that this is not an ongoing problem and the tower and the controller were having a bad day. It is not normal for ZAU to handle approach into rfd. Apparently there was some trouble with the equipment and center was accommodating approach until the trouble was solved. Reporter had his student fly while he tried to make proper contact, and they circled outside the class C airspace until contact was finally made. He heard other pilots calling with the same result of no response. He believes the controller was mad that they did not call in on a 2 mi final. This confusion occurred because controller was using wrong call sign. They had called in but did not receive clearance. Unable to establish radio contact. Wrong frequency given. ATC handling. Qualification in question. Reporter could not locate an ASRS reporting form and contacted a controller friend for a blank form. This is why he used the ATC reporting form.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LCL CTLR ATTITUDE AND POOR HANDLING CREATE PROB FOR INSTRUCTOR WITH STUDENT PLT.

Narrative: I WAS GIVING ADVANCED XCOUNTRY INSTRUCTION TO A STUDENT ON A 3 LEG TRIP FROM OSH TO RFD TO C32 TO OSH. ON THE INBOUND TO RFD, THE ATIS STATED THAT RFD APCH SHOULD BE CALLED ON 120.37, WHICH WE DID, BUT THIS TURNED OUT TO BE ZAU. THE CTR CTLR STATED THAT WE SHOULD CONTACT THE TWR ON 118.3 WHEN WE WERE '10 MI OUT.' WE ATTEMPTED CONTACT NUMEROUS TIMES ON 118.3 AND 121.9 BUT RECEIVED NO REPLIES. I THEN CONTACTED JVL TWR, EXPLAINED THE SIT AND AFTER A BRIEF DELAY WAS TOLD TO ATTEMPT RECONTACT ON 118.3. ON THIS ATTEMPT, RFD TWR ANSWERED AND WE WERE TOLD TO RPT ON A 2 MI FINAL FOR RWY 19. UPON THIS RPT THE LCL CTLR ANSWERED US BUT USED A DIFFERENT REGISTRATION NUMBER THAN OURS. I THEN ASKED IF WE WERE CLRED TO LAND, UPON WHICH THE CTLR STATED, 'NEGATIVE AS WE HAD NOT RPTED THE 2 MI FINAL.' WHEN I SAID WE HAD RPTED FINAL BUT HE HAD ANSWERED ANOTHER ACFT, HE REPLIED WITH 'SAY YOUR POS NOW.' I SAID, '1 MI FINAL FOR RWY 19.' HE DID NOT RESPOND TO THIS AND I HAD TO PRESS HIM FURTHER FOR LNDG CLRNC. IN MY OPINION, THIS PERSON DOES NOT BELONG IN THE ATC SYS AND IS A HAZARD IN IT. WE WERE EXTREMELY BUSY TRYING TO ESTABLISH COMS WITH THIS FACILITY, AT THE SAME TIME RUNNING DSCNT AND LNDG CHKLIST, DSNDING AND AVOIDING THE CLASS C AREA. ADD TO THIS THE CTLR'S LACK OF CONCERN AND GAME PLAYING ON FINAL APCH, ALONG WITH OTHER TFC, AND THE STAGE FOR AN ACCIDENT IS SET. THE CTLR NEVER ONCE GOT OUR CALL SIGN CORRECT DESPITE MY CORRECTION WITH EVERY XMISSION. WHEN PRESSED FOR LNDG CLRNC HE DELIBERATELY AVOIDED GIVING IT AND WE WERE ABOUT TO GAR WHEN WE WERE FINALLY CLRED. THERE IS NO VALID REASON I CAN THINK OF THAT WE SHOULD REPEATEDLY PROMPT A CTLR TO ANSWER HIS RADIO OR GIVE US REQUIRED INSTRUCTIONS. HE WAS NOT THAT BUSY. IT WAS NECESSARY FOR US TO EXPEDITE DSCNT AND TO CIRCLE IN ORDER TO AVOID THE CLASS C AIRSPACE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE DID NOT FOLLOW UP ON THIS INCIDENT BECAUSE HE HAS FOUND THAT CONTACTING LCL PERSONNEL USUALLY DOES NOT HAVE VERY SATISFACTORY RESULTS. HE BELIEVES THAT THIS IS NOT AN ONGOING PROB AND THE TWR AND THE CTLR WERE HAVING A BAD DAY. IT IS NOT NORMAL FOR ZAU TO HANDLE APCH INTO RFD. APPARENTLY THERE WAS SOME TROUBLE WITH THE EQUIP AND CTR WAS ACCOMMODATING APCH UNTIL THE TROUBLE WAS SOLVED. RPTR HAD HIS STUDENT FLY WHILE HE TRIED TO MAKE PROPER CONTACT, AND THEY CIRCLED OUTSIDE THE CLASS C AIRSPACE UNTIL CONTACT WAS FINALLY MADE. HE HEARD OTHER PLTS CALLING WITH THE SAME RESULT OF NO RESPONSE. HE BELIEVES THE CTLR WAS MAD THAT THEY DID NOT CALL IN ON A 2 MI FINAL. THIS CONFUSION OCCURRED BECAUSE CTLR WAS USING WRONG CALL SIGN. THEY HAD CALLED IN BUT DID NOT RECEIVE CLRNC. UNABLE TO ESTABLISH RADIO CONTACT. WRONG FREQ GIVEN. ATC HANDLING. QUALIFICATION IN QUESTION. RPTR COULD NOT LOCATE AN ASRS RPTING FORM AND CONTACTED A CTLR FRIEND FOR A BLANK FORM. THIS IS WHY HE USED THE ATC RPTING FORM.

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.