Narrative:

Clearance from ZOA: 'cross munso inbound at 5000'.' queried controller and he restated, 'cleared for approach, cross munso inbound at 5000'.' told him that that was too high at OM. Controller said, 'cleared for approach radar service terminated.' we then descended and flew approach as published. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter stated that the reason for the report was that the ARTCC controller gave the clearance 4 times, and each time the flight crew rejected it as the altitude to cross the final approach fix was too high and terminology did not fit the situation. The controller finally said that they were cleared for the approach and terminated radar service. Reporter further stated that he should have called the center right away as the controller exhibited some level of aggression toward them and he didn't know if a report of some kind might be filed on the flight crew for refusing a clearance. 2 days later reporter did call the center and talked with a supervisor.he was informed that subject controller had been overheard giving similar, improper clearance to other aircraft and was being subjected to further training. Reporter's main complain was that if clearance as given had been followed, it would have resulted in an unstabilized approach into mry.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: REPORTER COMPLAINS OF PHRASEOLOGY USED BY CTLR ON GIVING APCH CLRNC AND THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE IMPLIED.

Narrative: CLRNC FROM ZOA: 'CROSS MUNSO INBND AT 5000'.' QUERIED CTLR AND HE RESTATED, 'CLRED FOR APCH, CROSS MUNSO INBND AT 5000'.' TOLD HIM THAT THAT WAS TOO HIGH AT OM. CTLR SAID, 'CLRED FOR APCH RADAR SVC TERMINATED.' WE THEN DSNDED AND FLEW APCH AS PUBLISHED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATED THAT THE REASON FOR THE RPT WAS THAT THE ARTCC CTLR GAVE THE CLRNC 4 TIMES, AND EACH TIME THE FLT CREW REJECTED IT AS THE ALT TO CROSS THE FINAL APCH FIX WAS TOO HIGH AND TERMINOLOGY DID NOT FIT THE SITUATION. THE CTLR FINALLY SAID THAT THEY WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH AND TERMINATED RADAR SERVICE. REPORTER FURTHER STATED THAT HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED THE CENTER RIGHT AWAY AS THE CTLR EXHIBITED SOME LEVEL OF AGGRESSION TOWARD THEM AND HE DIDN'T KNOW IF A RPT OF SOME KIND MIGHT BE FILED ON THE FLT CREW FOR REFUSING A CLRNC. 2 DAYS LATER REPORTER DID CALL THE CENTER AND TALKED WITH A SUPVR.HE WAS INFORMED THAT SUBJECT CTLR HAD BEEN OVERHEARD GIVING SIMILAR, IMPROPER CLRNC TO OTHER ACFT AND WAS BEING SUBJECTED TO FURTHER TRAINING. REPORTER'S MAIN COMPLAIN WAS THAT IF CLRNC AS GIVEN HAD BEEN FOLLOWED, IT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN AN UNSTABILIZED APCH INTO MRY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.