BE40 flight crew challenged by bed controller after being cleared for visual approach by A90.

Attributes
ACN	510522
Time
Date	200105
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : bed.airport
State Reference	MA
Altitude	agl single value : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : bed.tower
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Beechjet 400
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : traffic pattern approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : bed.tower
Operator	Other
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : traffic pattern
Person 1
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : multi engine pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 6900 flight time type : 400
ASRS Report	510522
Person 2
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne critical non adherence : published procedure non adherence : required legal separation non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment : tcas other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : returned to intended or assigned course
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Miss Distance	horizontal : 1500 vertical : 200
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Error

Narrative:

Upon arrival at bed, we were cleared for a visual approach to runway 29 at bed. This ATC clearance from bos was received at a distance of 7-10 mi from the airport. From our position, we were set up for a wide right base entry. I noticed several aircraft in the pattern (left traffic) at bed on the TCASII. This caused me some concern. The first controller error occurred when he requested us to report a midfield right downwind. Clearly this was inappropriate given our location. His awareness of our position was lacking. He was informed of our position. We were cleared to land. While turning right base to final we were told to turn left and enter at right downwind. In this position, a right turn 180-240 degree turn) would have put us back in a right downwind. We complied with the left turnout and had turned about 180 degrees when the controller told us to turn right and re-enter final. This put us over a target that he was working. In accordance with TCASII we climbed 400-500 ft to clear the target. Proceeded to a normal landing. This controller clearly was too busy and not aware of our position relative to other aircraft in his control. After landing we were instructed to call tower. He accused us of making a 360 degree turn (we didn't). I feel he was trying to cover his mistakes by blaming us for something we did not do. When are controllers going to be held accountable?

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE40 FLC CHALLENGED BY BED CTLR AFTER BEING CLRED FOR VISUAL APCH BY A90.

Narrative: UPON ARR AT BED, WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 29 AT BED. THIS ATC CLRNC FROM BOS WAS RECEIVED AT A DISTANCE OF 7-10 MI FROM THE ARPT. FROM OUR POS, WE WERE SET UP FOR A WIDE R BASE ENTRY. I NOTICED SEVERAL ACFT IN THE PATTERN (L TFC) AT BED ON THE TCASII. THIS CAUSED ME SOME CONCERN. THE FIRST CTLR ERROR OCCURRED WHEN HE REQUESTED US TO RPT A MIDFIELD R DOWNWIND. CLRLY THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE GIVEN OUR LOCATION. HIS AWARENESS OF OUR POS WAS LACKING. HE WAS INFORMED OF OUR POS. WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. WHILE TURNING R BASE TO FINAL WE WERE TOLD TO TURN L AND ENTER AT R DOWNWIND. IN THIS POS, A R TURN 180-240 DEG TURN) WOULD HAVE PUT US BACK IN A R DOWNWIND. WE COMPLIED WITH THE L TURNOUT AND HAD TURNED ABOUT 180 DEGS WHEN THE CTLR TOLD US TO TURN R AND RE-ENTER FINAL. THIS PUT US OVER A TARGET THAT HE WAS WORKING. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TCASII WE CLBED 400-500 FT TO CLR THE TARGET. PROCEEDED TO A NORMAL LNDG. THIS CTLR CLRLY WAS TOO BUSY AND NOT AWARE OF OUR POS RELATIVE TO OTHER ACFT IN HIS CTL. AFTER LNDG WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CALL TWR. HE ACCUSED US OF MAKING A 360 DEG TURN (WE DIDN'T). I FEEL HE WAS TRYING TO COVER HIS MISTAKES BY BLAMING US FOR SOMETHING WE DID NOT DO. WHEN ARE CTLRS GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE?

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.