Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RFD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D RFD
ATC / advisory: TRACON RFD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was not a 'deviation from ATC clearance;' but the list of event categories does not include a relevant category. This event involved the RFD Approach Controller becoming angry over the heading we requested to avoid weather during our arrival into RFD. We had been deviating east around a line of thunderstorms and after the hand off from Chicago Center to RFD Approach; RFD asked us whether we wanted a left (north) or right (south) downwind for the ILS to 7. I said it didn't matter much to us which downwind we flew; but we needed to deviate around weather first. I was being conciliatory and accommodating when I said that; which I mention because it might not read that way on paper. The Controller cleared us direct to the RFD VOR. We declined that; as it would have taken us through a cell; and requested a 360 degree heading for a couple of miles. He asked if we could fly a 010 heading instead; as the 360 heading would require him to coordinate. I said we would take a look when we got to 360; and let him know whether the 010 heading would work; as there was another bit of weather in that direction. He sounded annoyed; I assume about the necessity of having to coordinate the deviation. The 010 turned out to be better for us; so after we rolled out at 360 I said we were able the 010 heading; which is what he wanted originally. That seemed to anger him even more. He replied in an annoyed; exasperated tone that he had just got through coordinating the 360 heading we asked for; and now we were telling him that we wanted the other one? I said; well; and then you coordinated that after I said that we were going to take a look and see if the weather would let us do 010. His next transmission was that we could find our own way to the airport: I don't recall the exact terminology; but it was non-standard and was essentially that we were on our own. The Captain made three attempts to contact him after that; but received no reply. I changed back to the last Chicago frequency and asked if they could vector us for the ILS to Runway 7 at RFD; he agreed to that; but asked whether we couldn't get a hold of RFD. I said no; we were talking to him; but he doesn't want to talk to us. We were still deviating around the weather at this point; and the Captain switched back to RFD Approach frequency and broadcast in the blind; with no reply from ATC; our intention to proceed on our current heading for X miles and then fly a north downwind to Runway 7 for the ILS. About 5 minutes after RFD broke off contact; RFD ATC contacted us again. I don't know if it was the same Controller who made contact. We continued the rest of the flight without any additional problems. Except for one flight; I didn't hear anyone else on the radio when we were with RFD; so the request to deviate around the line of thunderstorms should have been neither unexpected nor difficult to arrange; nor have produced task saturation. All the company flights had departed by then. Communications with both Chicago and RFD seemed normal up to the point where the Controller told us to find our own way there; and no one appeared surprised or dismayed that we elected to go around the line. I don't know what Chicago was doing with their arrival traffic; if they had any; but by then we were below 10;000 FT--closer to 7;000 and descending--and shouldn't have been a conflict for them. Our request was the only one we could have made safely. The Controller's actions were distracting and his last transmission ambiguous: he hadn't told us that RADAR coverage was terminated which we would have had to request in any case; and we were IMC; yet he refused to talk to us; he didn't actually clear us anywhere outright or provide instructions for when we were done deviating; and his attitude and tone were hostile and angry; seemingly without provocation. I don't know if this report has adequately conveyed the bizarre nature of what happened; and recall the Controller's exact phrase for washing his hands of us; but it was clear in context that that's what he was doing.




Synopsis: Air Carrier inbound to RFD described a less than cooperative ATC Controller during vectors for the airport; the Controller seemed reluctant to approve deviations while displaying a general unprofessional attitude.