 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
MD80 on descent into ord commented about ATC services; both from ZAU and C90; noting less than optimum service.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 700616 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200606 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | intersection : story |
| State Reference | IL |
| Altitude | msl single value : 10000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zau.artcc tower : dfw.tower |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | MD-83 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | descent : intermediate altitude |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| ASRS Report | 700616 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Narrative:
Center delayed our descent for traffic and then asked for expedited descent which we provided. Approach would not take the handoff according to center so we were given a turn of 150 degrees from our original course and told to level at 10000 ft; a change from our previous clearance to 8000 ft. Then given another turn and told to confirm that we were descending to 8000 ft. I said we had not received that but were now descending to 8000 ft. The controller was very busy and his terminology for the 10000 ft leveloff was nonstandard and we were unable to confirm it after our original readback due to frequency congestion. No traffic conflicts noted or observed. Apparently; there was some kind of difficulty between center and approach because the center controller complained that approach was 'in a bad mood' and would not take our handoff when we were high and added to his workload pretty dramatically.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: MD80 ON DSCNT INTO ORD COMMENTED ABOUT ATC SVCS; BOTH FROM ZAU AND C90; NOTING LESS THAN OPTIMUM SVC.
Narrative: CTR DELAYED OUR DSCNT FOR TFC AND THEN ASKED FOR EXPEDITED DSCNT WHICH WE PROVIDED. APCH WOULD NOT TAKE THE HDOF ACCORDING TO CTR SO WE WERE GIVEN A TURN OF 150 DEGS FROM OUR ORIGINAL COURSE AND TOLD TO LEVEL AT 10000 FT; A CHANGE FROM OUR PREVIOUS CLRNC TO 8000 FT. THEN GIVEN ANOTHER TURN AND TOLD TO CONFIRM THAT WE WERE DSNDING TO 8000 FT. I SAID WE HAD NOT RECEIVED THAT BUT WERE NOW DSNDING TO 8000 FT. THE CTLR WAS VERY BUSY AND HIS TERMINOLOGY FOR THE 10000 FT LEVELOFF WAS NONSTANDARD AND WE WERE UNABLE TO CONFIRM IT AFTER OUR ORIGINAL READBACK DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION. NO TFC CONFLICTS NOTED OR OBSERVED. APPARENTLY; THERE WAS SOME KIND OF DIFFICULTY BTWN CTR AND APCH BECAUSE THE CTR CTLR COMPLAINED THAT APCH WAS 'IN A BAD MOOD' AND WOULD NOT TAKE OUR HDOF WHEN WE WERE HIGH AND ADDED TO HIS WORKLOAD PRETTY DRAMATICALLY.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.