Narrative:

The main reason for submitting this NASA report is that in my experience of flying through the southern washington / northern oregon / willamette valley area is the controllers are spread quite thin. They seem to often be juggling multiple frequencies and sometimes with poor radio reception - even on victor airways (at or above the MEA's). After recently flying round trip from north of seattle to just north of san diego; nowhere along this route were the controllers stretched more thinly. Norcal and socal approaches are good examples of ATC facilities where the controllers do not seem to be overloaded with traffic - at least from my limited; recent experience. Regarding the flight listed above is another example of this. After filing an IFR flight plan to hillsboro; or (hio); everything was going smoothly until nearing the IAF. After picking up the current ATIS (with the winds calm) the seattle center controller handed me off much later than I expected to portland approach (124.35). After twice being unable to raise portland approach on this frequency; I went back to the seattle approach controller and we re-confirmed 134.35 was; in fact; the correct frequency. He said he would contract portland approach (I assume on a landline) and would get back to me as soon as possible. About that time he started getting very busy with lots of other traffic; so I decided to monitor 124.35 on the second communication (in the background). Eventually I heard activity on 124.35 and quickly told the seattle approach controller I was going to switch back to this previously assigned frequency. This controller never acknowledged this transmission as he was now swamped with requests just as the smooth air had quickly turned to moderate turbulence. Now in radio contact with the portland approach controller; he asked which approach I would prefer; after stating I had information charlie at hio. My response was we'd like the ILS 13R. Soon he came back and assigned me the RNAV 13R and I loaded that approach. Then he asked me again what approach I would like and I said that I'd just loaded the RNAV 13R approach. During this time he was giving me vectors and at some point stated that the hillsboro tower might not be able to grant me this approach due to departing (opposite direction) traffic. Just before he handed me over to the tower; he apologized for not being able to issue me an approach clearance and he then assigned me a VFR altitude of 3;500; direct hio. At this point; due to the turbulence; my passenger becoming uncomfortable with the bumps and added stress of the complications with ATC I was becoming a bit frazzled myself. Soon after contacting the tower; I cancelled IFR and the tower controller updated the winds; which included a strong gust factor out of the northeast; favoring runway 31L. The tower told me to enter a right downwind to runway 31L. I was slow to pick up on the change of runways (13 vs. 31); even though I had studied the airport diagram the night before and I knew it was a right pattern for the runway 13R. Yet for some reason; I entered an extended left downwind. The tower then gave me an altitude restriction of 1;700 (well above the traffic pattern altitude) and I asked if they had radar. The controller response was 'sort of'. At that point it didn't seem appropriate to ask for a suggested heading; which might have prevented my error in the pattern entry. Now on the downwind; the controller said the winds had shifted and he cleared me to land on runway 02. The flight ended uneventfully and I was pleased with a smooth crosswind landing in gusty conditions. However; I was disappointed in myself by making such a beginners mistake and learned for the need to also brief myself (inflight) of the VFR procedures (even on an IFR flight plan). This is especially true when landing at a busy towered airport.given the high number of bizjets; flight school activity and busy mix of other traffic; it wouldn't be hard to makea case for the hillsboro tower to become better 'radar' equipped. Another suggestion is that for improved traffic flow (should diverting to runway 02 become necessary); left traffic for 31L might be worth some consideration - despite the population encroachment on the west side of this airport.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Pilot reported his confusion while flying into HIO and not being able to question ATC due to frequency congestion.

Narrative: The main reason for submitting this NASA report is that in my experience of flying through the Southern Washington / Northern Oregon / Willamette Valley area is the controllers are spread quite thin. They seem to often be juggling multiple frequencies and sometimes with poor radio reception - even on Victor airways (at or above the MEA's). After recently flying round trip from north of Seattle to just north of San Diego; nowhere along this route were the controllers stretched more thinly. NorCal and SoCal approaches are good examples of ATC facilities where the controllers do not seem to be overloaded with traffic - at least from my limited; recent experience. Regarding the flight listed above is another example of this. After filing an IFR flight plan to Hillsboro; OR (HIO); everything was going smoothly until nearing the IAF. After picking up the current ATIS (with the winds calm) the Seattle Center controller handed me off much later than I expected to Portland Approach (124.35). After twice being unable to raise Portland approach on this frequency; I went back to the Seattle Approach controller and we re-confirmed 134.35 was; in fact; the correct frequency. He said he would contract Portland approach (I assume on a landline) and would get back to me ASAP. About that time he started getting very busy with lots of other traffic; so I decided to monitor 124.35 on the second COM (in the background). Eventually I heard activity on 124.35 and quickly told the Seattle Approach controller I was going to switch back to this previously assigned frequency. This controller never acknowledged this transmission as he was now swamped with requests just as the smooth air had quickly turned to moderate turbulence. Now in radio contact with the Portland Approach controller; he asked which approach I would prefer; after stating I had information Charlie at HIO. My response was we'd like the ILS 13R. Soon he came back and assigned me the RNAV 13R and I loaded that Approach. Then he asked me again what approach I would like and I said that I'd just loaded the RNAV 13R approach. During this time he was giving me vectors and at some point stated that the Hillsboro Tower might not be able to grant me this approach due to departing (opposite direction) traffic. Just before he handed me over to the Tower; he apologized for not being able to issue me an approach clearance and he then assigned me a VFR altitude of 3;500; direct HIO. At this point; due to the turbulence; my passenger becoming uncomfortable with the bumps and added stress of the complications with ATC I was becoming a bit frazzled myself. Soon after contacting the tower; I cancelled IFR and the tower controller updated the winds; which included a strong gust factor out of the NE; favoring runway 31L. The tower told me to enter a right downwind to runway 31L. I was slow to pick up on the change of runways (13 vs. 31); even though I had studied the airport diagram the night before and I knew it was a right pattern for the runway 13R. Yet for some reason; I entered an extended left downwind. The tower then gave me an altitude restriction of 1;700 (well above the traffic pattern altitude) and I asked if they had radar. The controller response was 'sort of'. At that point it didn't seem appropriate to ask for a suggested heading; which might have prevented my error in the pattern entry. Now on the downwind; the controller said the winds had shifted and he cleared me to land on runway 02. The flight ended uneventfully and I was pleased with a smooth crosswind landing in gusty conditions. However; I was disappointed in myself by making such a beginners mistake and learned for the need to also brief myself (inflight) of the VFR procedures (even on an IFR flight plan). This is especially true when landing at a busy towered airport.Given the high number of bizjets; flight school activity and busy mix of other traffic; it wouldn't be hard to makea case for the Hillsboro tower to become better 'radar' equipped. Another suggestion is that for improved traffic flow (should diverting to runway 02 become necessary); left traffic for 31L might be worth some consideration - despite the population encroachment on the West side of this airport.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.