Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Human Factors; Procedure
I was conducting a practical test for the addition of an instrument rating to a private pilot certificate. We started under VFR. [We] informed ATC that we would need three instrument approaches when he got his clearance. This was relayed again to the Departure Controller. While in flight; the Departure Controller asked which approaches we need; and I requested three approaches to 23L and/or 23R. The Controller stated he couldn't give us a hold on one of those approaches due to traffic; so we requested the GPS 32 for our final approach of the practical test. Due to ceilings and obstacle clearance limitations; we were given an IFR clearance for the final approach; a GPS approach to Runway 32. Upon passing the final approach fixed and being handed off to Tower (now in visual conditions on our instrument flight plan); we informed the Tower Controller that we needed to circle to a different runway to land. The Tower Controller complained that it was too late for that and we needed to land on Runway 32. I asked him what the winds were; and he responded with 180 @ 10 kts. I told him we were unable to land on 32 due to those conditions and that we would execute a missed approach upon completion of our approach. The Controller sounded frustrated; voiced that he wished we had told the radar Controller that earlier; canceled our approach clearance; and told us to descend to 2;000 feet; fly a 020 heading; and to contact Departure. This is the second time in two days that a Tower Controller has given me an abrupt frequency change to Departure in similar circumstances on an approach.The 020 heading put us flying into/over/across the final approaches to 23L and 23R. We contacted the Departure Controller; who was surprised (just like when this happened yesterday) to have us on frequency. This is concerning because there was apparently no communication between Tower and Departure to coordinate the handoff. Especially on an IFR clearance; it seems reckless to put us across the final for 23L and 23R in apparent retaliation for a late notice need to circle; and not communicate that to the radar room. If the reason they couldn't get us in on 23L or 23R was for traffic conflicts; he put us right in their path without telling the radar room controlling those aircraft.The departure controller flew us on a 090 heading back across the 23L final; sent us out about 10 miles; then turned us back in for an approach to 23L. During all this time there were no aircraft between us and the airport. The controllers seemed to be giving us a penalty vector. I have voiced numerous complaints over the years to RDU ATC management about them pressuring us to land on Runway 32 in general; especially in tailwinds. This behavior is dangerous and teaches local pilots that they should either accept a dangerous landing condition (short runway with tailwind) or be given extended penalty vectors.Unfortunately; this type of behavior by ATC led to a fatal aircraft accident in the past year at RDU with an aircraft being told to land on 32 in bad weather at night or face a delay for jet traffic on a bigger; easier to find runway. The controllers at RDU; especially during a period where the flight school is the major source of traffic (other traffic significantly reduced due to COVID); could be more accommodating. With some controllers; it seems the immediate reply is to panic and deny requests. Denying pilots the ability to conduct instrument approaches or sending them to satellite airports instead of giving them a 3 minute delay (what they tried to do to me yesterday) is unreasonable. Pressuring pilots to land on runway 32 in a tailwind in dangerous. Teaching pilots they will be 'punished' (delay vectors that cost the pilot money) for not accepting a tailwind landing on a short runway is dangerous. It's already killed two people in the past year. How many more people have to die before this stops? I sincerely hope that this behavior at RDU changes immediately before someone else gets hurt.
Pilot reported issues relating to a circling approach to Runway 32 at RDU and ATC communication issues for the circling approach.