|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : ilm.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Operator||general aviation : personal|
|Make Model Name||Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 91|
|Flight Phase||ground : taxi|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
instruction : trainee
|Qualification||pilot : student|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 19|
flight time total : 19
flight time type : 19
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
instruction : instructor
oversight : pic
|Anomaly||non adherence : clearance|
|Independent Detector||other controllera|
other flight crewa
|Resolutory Action||controller : issued new clearance|
|Problem Areas||ATC Human Performance|
|Primary Problem||ATC Human Performance|
I am a student pilot with 18 hours. My home base is jqf concord, nc, which is a twred airport. I am very comfortable with using the radios and talking to ATC. The controllers at jqf are always friendly and professional. Perhaps this gave me a false sense of security. I flew to ilm, nc, with an instructor. We arrived at approximately XA30. My first clue that not all controllers were as polite and friendly as those at jqf was when I read back my landing clearance. The conversation was as follows: ilm tower: aircraft X, cleared to land runway 35. Me: cleared for runway 35. Ilm tower: aircraft X, cleared to land runway 35. Me: cleared to land runway 35, aircraft X. The tone of voice of the controller was not only extremely rude, it was as if I had done something unspeakably wrong. Traffic was light to non existent and there were no other aircraft in the pattern at the time. Neither my instructor nor I could understand what was wrong with my clearance readback. The controller seemed to think that not repeating the words 'to land' was a cardinal sin. At this point, my instructor took over the radio calls, to shield me from this negative attitude. After landing, we requested a taxi clearance to the hangar. Our clearance was 'aircraft X is cleared all the way to hangar.' we accepted the clearance and taxied until we came to the runway on which we had just landed. The airport has 2 runways, and this was the approach end of the active. We both knew we had gotten a clearance 'all the way,' and we both knew that a taxi clearance is a clearance to cross any runways other than the one to which you're cleared. However, we considered multiple factors in our decision to hold short: 1) ATIS included the specific instruction 'hold short of all runways.' 2) if the taxi required crossing any other runway than the one on which we had just landed, we would have probably continued on without holding short, but since this was 'our runway,' we felt like we should stop. 3) safety. This was the active runway. If I were alone, I would have stopped here unless my clearance had specifically included 'cross runway 35/17.' 4) recent FAA and other efforts to prevent runway incursions, including a poster from the FAA which says, 'when in doubt, ask.' 5) the controller had an attitude problem, and we decided we'd rather take the abuse for holding short unnecessarily than for crossing the active without a clearance. My instructor made the radio call 'aircraft X is holding short at runway 35.' the controller's response, 'aircraft X is cleared all the way to hangar' had a tone of voice to imply that we were stupid for asking and should have just crossed the active runway. This reporting format does not provide for an appropriate way to convey the extremely negative tone of voice used by the controller, and 'rude' is not a strong enough word to describe the way we were spoken to. To prevent this problem in the future, controllers and pilots need to treat each other with mutual respect. A controller should expect pilots to know their task and understand reasonable instructions, but should also answer questions and clarify instructions as needed, without condemnation. A pilot who holds short of an active runway for a specific clearance to cross should not be verbally abused for his interest in safety. Finally, a pilot who makes errors (as we all do, though there were no pilot errors in this case), should be quickly and politely corrected so as to avoid future errors.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: C172 STUDENT PLT IS CONCERNED WITH ILM CTLR ATTITUDE AND PHRASEOLOGY.
Narrative: I AM A STUDENT PLT WITH 18 HRS. MY HOME BASE IS JQF CONCORD, NC, WHICH IS A TWRED ARPT. I AM VERY COMFORTABLE WITH USING THE RADIOS AND TALKING TO ATC. THE CTLRS AT JQF ARE ALWAYS FRIENDLY AND PROFESSIONAL. PERHAPS THIS GAVE ME A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY. I FLEW TO ILM, NC, WITH AN INSTRUCTOR. WE ARRIVED AT APPROX XA30. MY FIRST CLUE THAT NOT ALL CTLRS WERE AS POLITE AND FRIENDLY AS THOSE AT JQF WAS WHEN I READ BACK MY LNDG CLRNC. THE CONVERSATION WAS AS FOLLOWS: ILM TWR: ACFT X, CLRED TO LAND RWY 35. ME: CLRED FOR RWY 35. ILM TWR: ACFT X, CLRED TO LAND RWY 35. ME: CLRED TO LAND RWY 35, ACFT X. THE TONE OF VOICE OF THE CTLR WAS NOT ONLY EXTREMELY RUDE, IT WAS AS IF I HAD DONE SOMETHING UNSPEAKABLY WRONG. TFC WAS LIGHT TO NON EXISTENT AND THERE WERE NO OTHER ACFT IN THE PATTERN AT THE TIME. NEITHER MY INSTRUCTOR NOR I COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS WRONG WITH MY CLRNC READBACK. THE CTLR SEEMED TO THINK THAT NOT REPEATING THE WORDS 'TO LAND' WAS A CARDINAL SIN. AT THIS POINT, MY INSTRUCTOR TOOK OVER THE RADIO CALLS, TO SHIELD ME FROM THIS NEGATIVE ATTITUDE. AFTER LNDG, WE REQUESTED A TAXI CLRNC TO THE HANGAR. OUR CLRNC WAS 'ACFT X IS CLRED ALL THE WAY TO HANGAR.' WE ACCEPTED THE CLRNC AND TAXIED UNTIL WE CAME TO THE RWY ON WHICH WE HAD JUST LANDED. THE ARPT HAS 2 RWYS, AND THIS WAS THE APCH END OF THE ACTIVE. WE BOTH KNEW WE HAD GOTTEN A CLRNC 'ALL THE WAY,' AND WE BOTH KNEW THAT A TAXI CLRNC IS A CLRNC TO CROSS ANY RWYS OTHER THAN THE ONE TO WHICH YOU'RE CLRED. HOWEVER, WE CONSIDERED MULTIPLE FACTORS IN OUR DECISION TO HOLD SHORT: 1) ATIS INCLUDED THE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION 'HOLD SHORT OF ALL RWYS.' 2) IF THE TAXI REQUIRED XING ANY OTHER RWY THAN THE ONE ON WHICH WE HAD JUST LANDED, WE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY CONTINUED ON WITHOUT HOLDING SHORT, BUT SINCE THIS WAS 'OUR RWY,' WE FELT LIKE WE SHOULD STOP. 3) SAFETY. THIS WAS THE ACTIVE RWY. IF I WERE ALONE, I WOULD HAVE STOPPED HERE UNLESS MY CLRNC HAD SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED 'CROSS RWY 35/17.' 4) RECENT FAA AND OTHER EFFORTS TO PREVENT RWY INCURSIONS, INCLUDING A POSTER FROM THE FAA WHICH SAYS, 'WHEN IN DOUBT, ASK.' 5) THE CTLR HAD AN ATTITUDE PROB, AND WE DECIDED WE'D RATHER TAKE THE ABUSE FOR HOLDING SHORT UNNECESSARILY THAN FOR XING THE ACTIVE WITHOUT A CLRNC. MY INSTRUCTOR MADE THE RADIO CALL 'ACFT X IS HOLDING SHORT AT RWY 35.' THE CTLR'S RESPONSE, 'ACFT X IS CLRED ALL THE WAY TO HANGAR' HAD A TONE OF VOICE TO IMPLY THAT WE WERE STUPID FOR ASKING AND SHOULD HAVE JUST CROSSED THE ACTIVE RWY. THIS RPTING FORMAT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO CONVEY THE EXTREMELY NEGATIVE TONE OF VOICE USED BY THE CTLR, AND 'RUDE' IS NOT A STRONG ENOUGH WORD TO DESCRIBE THE WAY WE WERE SPOKEN TO. TO PREVENT THIS PROB IN THE FUTURE, CTLRS AND PLTS NEED TO TREAT EACH OTHER WITH MUTUAL RESPECT. A CTLR SHOULD EXPECT PLTS TO KNOW THEIR TASK AND UNDERSTAND REASONABLE INSTRUCTIONS, BUT SHOULD ALSO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND CLARIFY INSTRUCTIONS AS NEEDED, WITHOUT CONDEMNATION. A PLT WHO HOLDS SHORT OF AN ACTIVE RWY FOR A SPECIFIC CLRNC TO CROSS SHOULD NOT BE VERBALLY ABUSED FOR HIS INTEREST IN SAFETY. FINALLY, A PLT WHO MAKES ERRORS (AS WE ALL DO, THOUGH THERE WERE NO PLT ERRORS IN THIS CASE), SHOULD BE QUICKLY AND POLITELY CORRECTED SO AS TO AVOID FUTURE ERRORS.
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.