Narrative:

I was assigned to operate a DC10 from den-lax. The flight was planned from over hector, civet, and the civet 4 arrival to lax. Approximately 20 mi east of civet intersection at FL230, ZLA instructed us to contact socal approach. Upon tuning the frequency, we heard the ATC controller state essentially, 'ok folks, let's all listen up, we are getting busy so let's try and get it right the first time.' it was clear to us that this controller was frustrated. We checked in with the controller and were instructed to descend to FL180. After a short delay we were issued the clearance to los angeles via the pdz 3 arrival. We acknowledged the clearance and began a mad scramble to pull out this arrival, which we did not anticipate. After reviewing the pdz 3 arrival procedure, it was clear that we needed further instructions as to where the controller wanted us to intercept the arrival procedure. Due to frequency congestion, we were not able to immediately query the controller. As we passed the civet intersection the controller issued a 'turn right heading 340 degrees, vectors for traffic and arrival sequence.' we acknowledged, the clearance. While on this heading, the controller twice issued us, traffic at 11 O'clock and 3 mi at 14000 ft'. We did not see any traffic visually or on TCASII and advised the controller of this fact. The controller sounded quite concerned about this potential traffic conflict. We were then given a clearance to turn left heading 180 degrees. We were then cleared direct arnes and descent via the remainder of the civet 4 arrival. I responded with 'direct arne' and we switched back to the civet 4 arrival. The controller then asked 'what was that deviation north of course all about?' I responded 'don't worry, we will talk about it on the ground.' we continued and landed on runway 25L at lax. On the ground, I phoned socal approach and spoke with the supervisor. He advised me that he would review the tapes. I later spoke with the operations manager who explained that they had reviewed the tapes and the controller had been counseled about this situation. My concern is that this controller apparently did not understand that he had cleared us for an arrival which was not consistent with our location, then issued us a heading that directed us toward high mountainous terrain and generally did not appear to understand what was going on with the traffic flow. The general admonishment issued by this controller immediately put us on the defensive. Instead we took extra time reviewing the pdz 3 arrival in an effort to see what we had missed because surely this controller must be correct in issuing such a clearance to us. When a controller alienates pilots by issuing a general admonishment and then loses his situational awareness of traffic and turns an aircraft toward mountainous terrain, we have a recipe for future disaster.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SCT CTLR ISSUES CONFLICTING CLRNCS TO DC10 FLC. PIC CALLS FACILITY TO RESOLVE THE SIT.

Narrative: I WAS ASSIGNED TO OPERATE A DC10 FROM DEN-LAX. THE FLT WAS PLANNED FROM OVER HECTOR, CIVET, AND THE CIVET 4 ARR TO LAX. APPROX 20 MI E OF CIVET INTXN AT FL230, ZLA INSTRUCTED US TO CONTACT SOCAL APCH. UPON TUNING THE FREQ, WE HEARD THE ATC CTLR STATE ESSENTIALLY, 'OK FOLKS, LET'S ALL LISTEN UP, WE ARE GETTING BUSY SO LET'S TRY AND GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.' IT WAS CLR TO US THAT THIS CTLR WAS FRUSTRATED. WE CHKED IN WITH THE CTLR AND WERE INSTRUCTED TO DSND TO FL180. AFTER A SHORT DELAY WE WERE ISSUED THE CLRNC TO LOS ANGELES VIA THE PDZ 3 ARR. WE ACKNOWLEDGED THE CLRNC AND BEGAN A MAD SCRAMBLE TO PULL OUT THIS ARR, WHICH WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE. AFTER REVIEWING THE PDZ 3 ARR PROC, IT WAS CLR THAT WE NEEDED FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHERE THE CTLR WANTED US TO INTERCEPT THE ARR PROC. DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO IMMEDIATELY QUERY THE CTLR. AS WE PASSED THE CIVET INTXN THE CTLR ISSUED A 'TURN R HDG 340 DEGS, VECTORS FOR TFC AND ARR SEQUENCE.' WE ACKNOWLEDGED, THE CLRNC. WHILE ON THIS HDG, THE CTLR TWICE ISSUED US, TFC AT 11 O'CLOCK AND 3 MI AT 14000 FT'. WE DID NOT SEE ANY TFC VISUALLY OR ON TCASII AND ADVISED THE CTLR OF THIS FACT. THE CTLR SOUNDED QUITE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS POTENTIAL TFC CONFLICT. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A CLRNC TO TURN L HDG 180 DEGS. WE WERE THEN CLRED DIRECT ARNES AND DSCNT VIA THE REMAINDER OF THE CIVET 4 ARR. I RESPONDED WITH 'DIRECT ARNE' AND WE SWITCHED BACK TO THE CIVET 4 ARR. THE CTLR THEN ASKED 'WHAT WAS THAT DEV N OF COURSE ALL ABOUT?' I RESPONDED 'DON'T WORRY, WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT ON THE GND.' WE CONTINUED AND LANDED ON RWY 25L AT LAX. ON THE GND, I PHONED SOCAL APCH AND SPOKE WITH THE SUPVR. HE ADVISED ME THAT HE WOULD REVIEW THE TAPES. I LATER SPOKE WITH THE OPS MGR WHO EXPLAINED THAT THEY HAD REVIEWED THE TAPES AND THE CTLR HAD BEEN COUNSELED ABOUT THIS SIT. MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS CTLR APPARENTLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT HE HAD CLRED US FOR AN ARR WHICH WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH OUR LOCATION, THEN ISSUED US A HDG THAT DIRECTED US TOWARD HIGH MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN AND GENERALLY DID NOT APPEAR TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE TFC FLOW. THE GENERAL ADMONISHMENT ISSUED BY THIS CTLR IMMEDIATELY PUT US ON THE DEFENSIVE. INSTEAD WE TOOK EXTRA TIME REVIEWING THE PDZ 3 ARR IN AN EFFORT TO SEE WHAT WE HAD MISSED BECAUSE SURELY THIS CTLR MUST BE CORRECT IN ISSUING SUCH A CLRNC TO US. WHEN A CTLR ALIENATES PLTS BY ISSUING A GENERAL ADMONISHMENT AND THEN LOSES HIS SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF TFC AND TURNS AN ACFT TOWARD MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN, WE HAVE A RECIPE FOR FUTURE DISASTER.

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.