Narrative:

We were receiving radar service for a practice instrument approach (RNAV runway 27) to the portage county oh, airport (29G). The flight was being conducted under VFR conditions and the flight was not on an IFR flight plan. Upon departing a VOR hold, the cak approach controller issued a vector toward the approach course for the RNAV runway 27 approach to 29G. As we approached the initial approach course area and the fix at which one commences a procedure turn, we anticipated further instructions from the controller who appeared to be quite busy with other traffic in his control. After passing the course and nearly reaching the 4 NM limit of the protected procedure turn area, we elected to reverse course while we waited for an opportunity to contact the controller. Once we reversed course and got established on the approach course, the controller addressed our call sign with 'aircraft X how do you hear.' we replied loud and clear upon which he purported that he had been trying to contact us with vectors and TA's. We were certain that we were monitoring the frequency and advised that we had heard no such calls. The controller abruptly terminated our radar service and had us squawk VFR code further stating that he could not serve aircraft that were unresponsive to control. We interpreted this as a denial of further service and had to proceed to an alternate location to continue our instructional flight with another approach controller facility. While we do not believe we missed any xmissions through any fault of ours or our equipment, we do believe that once the control re-established (if you will) contact with us that further service should not have been terminated or denied as it was. On a busy VFR sunday morning with substantial air traffic, this termination of service unnecessarily represented the loss of a valuable additional flight safety resource.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAK APCH CTLR TERMINATES SVC TO A VFR C182 CONDUCTING PRACTICE INST APCHS.

Narrative: WE WERE RECEIVING RADAR SVC FOR A PRACTICE INST APCH (RNAV RWY 27) TO THE PORTAGE COUNTY OH, ARPT (29G). THE FLT WAS BEING CONDUCTED UNDER VFR CONDITIONS AND THE FLT WAS NOT ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. UPON DEPARTING A VOR HOLD, THE CAK APCH CTLR ISSUED A VECTOR TOWARD THE APCH COURSE FOR THE RNAV RWY 27 APCH TO 29G. AS WE APCHED THE INITIAL APCH COURSE AREA AND THE FIX AT WHICH ONE COMMENCES A PROC TURN, WE ANTICIPATED FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE CTLR WHO APPEARED TO BE QUITE BUSY WITH OTHER TFC IN HIS CTL. AFTER PASSING THE COURSE AND NEARLY REACHING THE 4 NM LIMIT OF THE PROTECTED PROC TURN AREA, WE ELECTED TO REVERSE COURSE WHILE WE WAITED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTACT THE CTLR. ONCE WE REVERSED COURSE AND GOT ESTABLISHED ON THE APCH COURSE, THE CTLR ADDRESSED OUR CALL SIGN WITH 'ACFT X HOW DO YOU HEAR.' WE REPLIED LOUD AND CLR UPON WHICH HE PURPORTED THAT HE HAD BEEN TRYING TO CONTACT US WITH VECTORS AND TA'S. WE WERE CERTAIN THAT WE WERE MONITORING THE FREQ AND ADVISED THAT WE HAD HEARD NO SUCH CALLS. THE CTLR ABRUPTLY TERMINATED OUR RADAR SVC AND HAD US SQUAWK VFR CODE FURTHER STATING THAT HE COULD NOT SERVE ACFT THAT WERE UNRESPONSIVE TO CTL. WE INTERPED THIS AS A DENIAL OF FURTHER SVC AND HAD TO PROCEED TO AN ALTERNATE LOCATION TO CONTINUE OUR INSTRUCTIONAL FLT WITH ANOTHER APCH CTLR FACILITY. WHILE WE DO NOT BELIEVE WE MISSED ANY XMISSIONS THROUGH ANY FAULT OF OURS OR OUR EQUIP, WE DO BELIEVE THAT ONCE THE CTL RE-ESTABLISHED (IF YOU WILL) CONTACT WITH US THAT FURTHER SVC SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED OR DENIED AS IT WAS. ON A BUSY VFR SUNDAY MORNING WITH SUBSTANTIAL AIR TFC, THIS TERMINATION OF SVC UNNECESSARILY REPRESENTED THE LOSS OF A VALUABLE ADDITIONAL FLT SAFETY RESOURCE.

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.