Narrative:

En route from cvg to buf, as per NOTAM, I contacted buf approach on frequency 126.5 20 mins prior to arrival to coordinate use of runway 5/23. Buf approach advised me to contact buf tower on frequency 120.5. After my initial call, buf tower's response was blocked, but on second attempt, communication was established. I explained that we were 20 mins out, and wished to coordinate for landing on runway 5/23. His reply was then blocked repeatedly, and I asked him to repeat several times. I then heard pontiac tower transmitting that I was on his frequency and must cease transmission. I attempted to explain, reasonably, that I was already in contact with buf tower per buf approach instructions. At that time, the ptk controller became belligerent and threatening, stating that he had my call sign, and this was my last warning. I apologized to him, and returned to buf approach, asking for coordination by landline. Throughout the transmission, I heard no other aircraft. Buf approach stated that buf tower routinely hears aircraft calling pontiac tower. Causes: 1) approach's recommendation for aircraft to call tower when too high (aircraft in flight levels). 2) towers too close together on shared frequency. Comment: this communication needed only 1 call and a reply. By being rude and angry, this controller increased the duration of congestion and nearly provoked a verbal battle. Frequency congestion requires increased tact and professionalism, not authoritarian threats. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised that subsequent trips into buf till month's end caused no further difficulties. TRACON effected tower coordination for runway usage.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIRBORNE CARJ FLC CHALLENGED BY PTK TWR ABOUT COMMON FREQ USAGE WHEN FLC COORDS WITH BUF TWR FOR RWY USAGE AS DIRECTED BY BUF APCH CTL.

Narrative: ENRTE FROM CVG TO BUF, AS PER NOTAM, I CONTACTED BUF APCH ON FREQ 126.5 20 MINS PRIOR TO ARR TO COORDINATE USE OF RWY 5/23. BUF APCH ADVISED ME TO CONTACT BUF TWR ON FREQ 120.5. AFTER MY INITIAL CALL, BUF TWR'S RESPONSE WAS BLOCKED, BUT ON SECOND ATTEMPT, COM WAS ESTABLISHED. I EXPLAINED THAT WE WERE 20 MINS OUT, AND WISHED TO COORDINATE FOR LNDG ON RWY 5/23. HIS REPLY WAS THEN BLOCKED REPEATEDLY, AND I ASKED HIM TO REPEAT SEVERAL TIMES. I THEN HEARD PONTIAC TWR XMITTING THAT I WAS ON HIS FREQ AND MUST CEASE XMISSION. I ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN, REASONABLY, THAT I WAS ALREADY IN CONTACT WITH BUF TWR PER BUF APCH INSTRUCTIONS. AT THAT TIME, THE PTK CTLR BECAME BELLIGERENT AND THREATENING, STATING THAT HE HAD MY CALL SIGN, AND THIS WAS MY LAST WARNING. I APOLOGIZED TO HIM, AND RETURNED TO BUF APCH, ASKING FOR COORD BY LANDLINE. THROUGHOUT THE XMISSION, I HEARD NO OTHER ACFT. BUF APCH STATED THAT BUF TWR ROUTINELY HEARS ACFT CALLING PONTIAC TWR. CAUSES: 1) APCH'S RECOMMENDATION FOR ACFT TO CALL TWR WHEN TOO HIGH (ACFT IN FLT LEVELS). 2) TWRS TOO CLOSE TOGETHER ON SHARED FREQ. COMMENT: THIS COM NEEDED ONLY 1 CALL AND A REPLY. BY BEING RUDE AND ANGRY, THIS CTLR INCREASED THE DURATION OF CONGESTION AND NEARLY PROVOKED A VERBAL BATTLE. FREQ CONGESTION REQUIRES INCREASED TACT AND PROFESSIONALISM, NOT AUTHORITARIAN THREATS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED THAT SUBSEQUENT TRIPS INTO BUF TILL MONTH'S END CAUSED NO FURTHER DIFFICULTIES. TRACON EFFECTED TWR COORD FOR RWY USAGE.

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.