Narrative:

My cfii and I were on a bona fide IFR clearance into ccr when 2 other aircraft requested practice approachs to ccr under VFR rules. The travis approach controller kept us at 4000 ft to within 4 NM of the ccr VOR (which is the FAF that should be crossed at 1000 ft), at which point we questioned his actions. He issued us vectors to the east to set up again. But since my cfii had been adamant that the approach be done properly, the controller's supervisor requested we call him. We did so upon landing, and he claimed we hadn't turned on the first vector soon enough, which is not true. We turned immediately even while 'discussing' the situation on the radio. However, travis' radar system, being old, doesn't show the turn quickly so the controller didn't see it right away. On the second approach, the controller kept us too high again, allowing a descent from 4000 ft at 5 NM from the VOR. We complied and almost made the crossing, but were not happy about 'shock-cooling' the engine. The main safety issue here is that the travis controller accepted 2 VFR flts in direct opposition to ours, putting us (a true IFR flight) in jeopardy of a head-on collision. Instead, the controller should have issued vectors to the VFR's and allowed us to properly complete our IFR approach.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA28 PLT AND INSTRUCTOR QUESTION SUU APCH CTLR'S SEQUENCING.

Narrative: MY CFII AND I WERE ON A BONA FIDE IFR CLRNC INTO CCR WHEN 2 OTHER ACFT REQUESTED PRACTICE APCHS TO CCR UNDER VFR RULES. THE TRAVIS APCH CTLR KEPT US AT 4000 FT TO WITHIN 4 NM OF THE CCR VOR (WHICH IS THE FAF THAT SHOULD BE CROSSED AT 1000 FT), AT WHICH POINT WE QUESTIONED HIS ACTIONS. HE ISSUED US VECTORS TO THE E TO SET UP AGAIN. BUT SINCE MY CFII HAD BEEN ADAMANT THAT THE APCH BE DONE PROPERLY, THE CTLR'S SUPVR REQUESTED WE CALL HIM. WE DID SO UPON LNDG, AND HE CLAIMED WE HADN'T TURNED ON THE FIRST VECTOR SOON ENOUGH, WHICH IS NOT TRUE. WE TURNED IMMEDIATELY EVEN WHILE 'DISCUSSING' THE SIT ON THE RADIO. HOWEVER, TRAVIS' RADAR SYS, BEING OLD, DOESN'T SHOW THE TURN QUICKLY SO THE CTLR DIDN'T SEE IT RIGHT AWAY. ON THE SECOND APCH, THE CTLR KEPT US TOO HIGH AGAIN, ALLOWING A DSCNT FROM 4000 FT AT 5 NM FROM THE VOR. WE COMPLIED AND ALMOST MADE THE XING, BUT WERE NOT HAPPY ABOUT 'SHOCK-COOLING' THE ENG. THE MAIN SAFETY ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE TRAVIS CTLR ACCEPTED 2 VFR FLTS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO OURS, PUTTING US (A TRUE IFR FLT) IN JEOPARDY OF A HEAD-ON COLLISION. INSTEAD, THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE ISSUED VECTORS TO THE VFR'S AND ALLOWED US TO PROPERLY COMPLETE OUR IFR APCH.

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.