Narrative:

Extremely poor service from ATC resulting in lost training opportunity and possible errors. I find time for training difficult to obtain. Today was severe clear; but time was available for myself and a safety pilot to do practice IFR approaches. I called pueblo ground and asked for practice IFR approaches with vectors beginning with ILS 26R approach. I was told to call pueblo clearance delivery. I had not done so because I have never needed a 'clearance' prior to this to practice. I called clearance and repeated my request. They did not offer a clearance for IFR work; squawk code; etc; but cleared me to taxi to the active runway. And for this I had to leave the ground frequency. I complied and when ready to go called tower frequency and was told to hold short; I did so. Then after one aircraft landed; I was told to taxi to another runway and call a different tower frequency. Each time I repeated my request for practice IFR approaches. On the new frequency I was eventually cleared to take-off from the second runway; but given no heading instructions. I departed and stayed on runway heading until instructed to 'make a left downwind departure.' I again repeated my request for approaches with vectors and was told 'just depart over the river and fly east until instructed to contact departure'. I did so and when turned over to denver departure I was asked to 'say request.' by this time I was very frustrated with ATC over their lack of communication among controllers and facilities and said so. It was explained to me that pueblo never passes on information to denver departure. Why then was I told to contact clearance delivery when I never had an IFR flight plan; was never issued a clearance and after making the request of four separate pueblo controllers; my request was totally unexpected by denver departure? My point in this report is two-fold. First; I was only given one vector and only being about 4 miles from the final approach course; this practice was unrealistic. I prefer to train as I would actually fly in IMC. This means putting on the 'hood' at 500-800 feet on takeoff and not removing it until at minimums. Departing in a VFR traffic pattern hardly duplicates this. After my poor experience with pueblo ATC; I had no desire to do additional practice and quit for the day after this one approach. This results in lower levels of training; which is never a good thing. Second; pueblo's poor service flustered me to the point where I may have used incorrect frequencies and non-standard phraseology and may have misspoken. Over the past several months pueblo's ATC services has changed having the approach/departure position removed and taken to denver.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: General aviation pilot expressed frustration regarding the ATC handling by Pueblo Tower; noting repeated request for 'practice approaches' failed; indicating ATC service has deteriorated since consolidation with D01.

Narrative: Extremely poor service from ATC resulting in lost training opportunity and possible errors. I find time for training difficult to obtain. Today was severe clear; but time was available for myself and a safety pilot to do practice IFR approaches. I called Pueblo Ground and asked for practice IFR approaches with vectors beginning with ILS 26R approach. I was told to call Pueblo Clearance Delivery. I had not done so because I have never needed a 'clearance' prior to this to practice. I called clearance and repeated my request. They did not offer a clearance for IFR work; squawk code; etc; but cleared me to taxi to the active runway. And for this I had to leave the Ground frequency. I complied and when ready to go called Tower frequency and was told to hold short; I did so. Then after one aircraft landed; I was told to taxi to another runway and call a different Tower frequency. Each time I repeated my request for practice IFR approaches. On the new frequency I was eventually cleared to take-off from the second runway; but given no heading instructions. I departed and stayed on runway heading until instructed to 'make a left downwind departure.' I again repeated my request for approaches with vectors and was told 'just depart over the river and fly East until instructed to contact Departure'. I did so and when turned over to Denver Departure I was asked to 'say request.' By this time I was very frustrated with ATC over their lack of communication among controllers and facilities and said so. It was explained to me that Pueblo never passes on information to Denver Departure. Why then was I told to contact Clearance Delivery when I never had an IFR flight plan; was never issued a clearance and after making the request of four separate Pueblo controllers; my request was totally unexpected by Denver Departure? My point in this report is two-fold. First; I was only given one vector and only being about 4 miles from the final approach course; this practice was unrealistic. I prefer to train as I would actually fly in IMC. This means putting on the 'hood' at 500-800 feet on takeoff and not removing it until at minimums. Departing in a VFR traffic pattern hardly duplicates this. After my poor experience with Pueblo ATC; I had no desire to do additional practice and quit for the day after this one approach. This results in lower levels of training; which is never a good thing. Second; Pueblo's poor service flustered me to the point where I may have used incorrect frequencies and non-standard phraseology and may have misspoken. Over the past several months Pueblo's ATC services has changed having the Approach/Departure position removed and taken to Denver.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.