Narrative:

Departed prc (elevation 5000') on INS rating flight test in small aircraft. Applicant issued (simulated) IFR clearance, which took him westbound on V12, MEA 10000'. At about 6500-7000' engine was running slightly rough. I attempted to tune it out using the mixture control and was partially successful. The applicant failed to execute departure procedure successfully, which justifies discontinuing the flight test. Since we were in the vicinity of dilly, I instructed him to conduct the VOR approach on the return to the airport. He called prc tower on 128.45 (the secondary or outside frequency) and was told to expect delay (5 mins, I think). I decided to use the time to complete a few other maneuvers so as not to waste aircraft time. However the engine was now running rough enough, and down on power enough, that I decided to bring it home. I called prc tower and told them I had an engine problem and was bringing it home. Tower asked if I wished to declare an emergency and I responded, 'not unless I have to,' knowing that when delays are in effect that a disruption of the pattern would result in probably $1000 worth of unnecessary flying around by all concerned. Tower told us to report over the sheraton (a landmark for the 6 mi 45 on the other side of the field, nearly 20 mi from where we were). I declined and stated we'd bring it straight in from where we were. Tower told us to report 3 (I believe) mi northwest of drk which we did, and were handed off to the controller on 125.3. We hit drk at 7000' (keeping plenty of air under us), turned left for a wide right downwind to runway 21, followed our traffic (he landed a bit long, at my request), landed and taxied to the main hangar. (The problem was, as I suspected, carburetor and not life-threatening). Mr. X the tower chief was on the phone and informed me that he intended to 'file on' me for entering the air traffic area west/O a clearance. I explained that I had a sick engine and he wanted to know why I didn't declare an emergency, that they would have cleared everybody out for me, which was of course precisely why I did not declare an emergency. I told him that I had tried to handle the problem with as little disruption as possible and that I thought I'd done a good job (actually, everything went very smoothly and no one even had to go around). He kept insisting I'd done wrong, so I told him to review the tapes and do as he pleased. Several days later mr. X called me again and stated that he had decided to send the file to flight standards, and in effect, file on me. There was no violation of the regulations, of course. We did not enter the air traffic area west/O contact with the tower (91.129B). Nobody (in an area in which air traffic control is exercised) operated contrary to an instruction (91.123B). I'd have been glad to submit the report required by 91.123D if asked (although it would be difficult to make a real case that we were given much priority), but mr. X was so eager to file on somebody that he never asked. My purpose in writing this report is obviously not to dodge a violation, but to call attention to a situation which has steadily been getting no better for the past several yrs. This is just the latest in a long string of incidents. A few examples: instrument in twin engine aircraft loses his traffic on opp downwind in the setting USN, asks tower to point it out to him and is ordered to depart the air traffic area. Pilot examiner conducting flight test is ordered to leave the air traffic area for giving the applicant a go around (part of the flight test). Pilot reports preceding traffic in sight from 6 mi 45 and is refused entry into air traffic area until tower has preceding traffic in sight. Instrs and examiners are being told that tower will not approve (simulated) single engine operation in the twins during instructional flts and certification/rating flight tests. These are just a few of the more glaring examples of what goes on at prc every day. We all realize, of course, that as a VFR tower, this is a training facility, and we tend to ignore obvious trnee's mistakes. It is also one of the busiest airports in the us and certainly deserves better than it is getting. The economic impact of this sort of thing is obvious--at $1-3/min there's one awful lot of hobbs timebeing wasted every day. The impact on training is also obvious. The safety implications? Well, under this kind of treatment, pilots tend to get frustrated and angry and an angry, frustrated pilot isn't a safe pilot. The solution: simple--a tower chief with a few yrs of (for example) vny experience under his belt (and maybe a tour or 2 at oshkosh!). Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states that pilot groups and individuals have talked with tower chief, but it does not seem to accomplish much. Reporter feels tower chief trains people to provide en route sep as he comes from an IFR background. Reporter states the 'gen aviation activity blows his mind.' he will not allow people to descend to minimums on practice approachs. Very frustrating as there are 4 active flight schools on the field. Training is seriously hampered when not allowed to practice some required procedures.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT EXAMINER ON TEST FLT HAS ROUGH ENGINE, RETURNS TO LAND. POOR ATC HANDLING.

Narrative: DEPARTED PRC (ELEVATION 5000') ON INS RATING FLT TEST IN SMA. APPLICANT ISSUED (SIMULATED) IFR CLRNC, WHICH TOOK HIM WBND ON V12, MEA 10000'. AT ABOUT 6500-7000' ENG WAS RUNNING SLIGHTLY ROUGH. I ATTEMPTED TO TUNE IT OUT USING THE MIXTURE CTL AND WAS PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL. THE APPLICANT FAILED TO EXECUTE DEP PROC SUCCESSFULLY, WHICH JUSTIFIES DISCONTINUING THE FLT TEST. SINCE WE WERE IN THE VICINITY OF DILLY, I INSTRUCTED HIM TO CONDUCT THE VOR APCH ON THE RETURN TO THE ARPT. HE CALLED PRC TWR ON 128.45 (THE SECONDARY OR OUTSIDE FREQ) AND WAS TOLD TO EXPECT DELAY (5 MINS, I THINK). I DECIDED TO USE THE TIME TO COMPLETE A FEW OTHER MANEUVERS SO AS NOT TO WASTE ACFT TIME. HOWEVER THE ENG WAS NOW RUNNING ROUGH ENOUGH, AND DOWN ON PWR ENOUGH, THAT I DECIDED TO BRING IT HOME. I CALLED PRC TWR AND TOLD THEM I HAD AN ENG PROB AND WAS BRINGING IT HOME. TWR ASKED IF I WISHED TO DECLARE AN EMER AND I RESPONDED, 'NOT UNLESS I HAVE TO,' KNOWING THAT WHEN DELAYS ARE IN EFFECT THAT A DISRUPTION OF THE PATTERN WOULD RESULT IN PROBABLY $1000 WORTH OF UNNECESSARY FLYING AROUND BY ALL CONCERNED. TWR TOLD US TO RPT OVER THE SHERATON (A LANDMARK FOR THE 6 MI 45 ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FIELD, NEARLY 20 MI FROM WHERE WE WERE). I DECLINED AND STATED WE'D BRING IT STRAIGHT IN FROM WHERE WE WERE. TWR TOLD US TO RPT 3 (I BELIEVE) MI NW OF DRK WHICH WE DID, AND WERE HANDED OFF TO THE CTLR ON 125.3. WE HIT DRK AT 7000' (KEEPING PLENTY OF AIR UNDER US), TURNED LEFT FOR A WIDE RIGHT DOWNWIND TO RWY 21, FOLLOWED OUR TFC (HE LANDED A BIT LONG, AT MY REQUEST), LANDED AND TAXIED TO THE MAIN HANGAR. (THE PROB WAS, AS I SUSPECTED, CARB AND NOT LIFE-THREATENING). MR. X THE TWR CHIEF WAS ON THE PHONE AND INFORMED ME THAT HE INTENDED TO 'FILE ON' ME FOR ENTERING THE ATA W/O A CLRNC. I EXPLAINED THAT I HAD A SICK ENG AND HE WANTED TO KNOW WHY I DIDN'T DECLARE AN EMER, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE CLRED EVERYBODY OUT FOR ME, WHICH WAS OF COURSE PRECISELY WHY I DID NOT DECLARE AN EMER. I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD TRIED TO HANDLE THE PROB WITH AS LITTLE DISRUPTION AS POSSIBLE AND THAT I THOUGHT I'D DONE A GOOD JOB (ACTUALLY, EVERYTHING WENT VERY SMOOTHLY AND NO ONE EVEN HAD TO GO AROUND). HE KEPT INSISTING I'D DONE WRONG, SO I TOLD HIM TO REVIEW THE TAPES AND DO AS HE PLEASED. SEVERAL DAYS LATER MR. X CALLED ME AGAIN AND STATED THAT HE HAD DECIDED TO SEND THE FILE TO FLT STANDARDS, AND IN EFFECT, FILE ON ME. THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE REGS, OF COURSE. WE DID NOT ENTER THE ATA W/O CONTACT WITH THE TWR (91.129B). NOBODY (IN AN AREA IN WHICH AIR TFC CTL IS EXERCISED) OPERATED CONTRARY TO AN INSTRUCTION (91.123B). I'D HAVE BEEN GLAD TO SUBMIT THE RPT REQUIRED BY 91.123D IF ASKED (ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO MAKE A REAL CASE THAT WE WERE GIVEN MUCH PRIORITY), BUT MR. X WAS SO EAGER TO FILE ON SOMEBODY THAT HE NEVER ASKED. MY PURPOSE IN WRITING THIS RPT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT TO DODGE A VIOLATION, BUT TO CALL ATTN TO A SITUATION WHICH HAS STEADILY BEEN GETTING NO BETTER FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YRS. THIS IS JUST THE LATEST IN A LONG STRING OF INCIDENTS. A FEW EXAMPLES: INSTR IN TWIN ENG ACFT LOSES HIS TFC ON OPP DOWNWIND IN THE SETTING USN, ASKS TWR TO POINT IT OUT TO HIM AND IS ORDERED TO DEPART THE ATA. PLT EXAMINER CONDUCTING FLT TEST IS ORDERED TO LEAVE THE ATA FOR GIVING THE APPLICANT A GAR (PART OF THE FLT TEST). PLT RPTS PRECEDING TFC IN SIGHT FROM 6 MI 45 AND IS REFUSED ENTRY INTO ATA UNTIL TWR HAS PRECEDING TFC IN SIGHT. INSTRS AND EXAMINERS ARE BEING TOLD THAT TWR WILL NOT APPROVE (SIMULATED) SINGLE ENG OPERATION IN THE TWINS DURING INSTRUCTIONAL FLTS AND CERTIFICATION/RATING FLT TESTS. THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE MORE GLARING EXAMPLES OF WHAT GOES ON AT PRC EVERY DAY. WE ALL REALIZE, OF COURSE, THAT AS A VFR TWR, THIS IS A TRNING FAC, AND WE TEND TO IGNORE OBVIOUS TRNEE'S MISTAKES. IT IS ALSO ONE OF THE BUSIEST ARPTS IN THE U.S. AND CERTAINLY DESERVES BETTER THAN IT IS GETTING. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THIS SORT OF THING IS OBVIOUS--AT $1-3/MIN THERE'S ONE AWFUL LOT OF HOBBS TIMEBEING WASTED EVERY DAY. THE IMPACT ON TRNING IS ALSO OBVIOUS. THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS? WELL, UNDER THIS KIND OF TREATMENT, PLTS TEND TO GET FRUSTRATED AND ANGRY AND AN ANGRY, FRUSTRATED PLT ISN'T A SAFE PLT. THE SOLUTION: SIMPLE--A TWR CHIEF WITH A FEW YRS OF (FOR EXAMPLE) VNY EXPERIENCE UNDER HIS BELT (AND MAYBE A TOUR OR 2 AT OSHKOSH!). CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES THAT PLT GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS HAVE TALKED WITH TWR CHIEF, BUT IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ACCOMPLISH MUCH. RPTR FEELS TWR CHIEF TRAINS PEOPLE TO PROVIDE ENRTE SEP AS HE COMES FROM AN IFR BACKGROUND. RPTR STATES THE 'GEN AVIATION ACTIVITY BLOWS HIS MIND.' HE WILL NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO DSND TO MINIMUMS ON PRACTICE APCHS. VERY FRUSTRATING AS THERE ARE 4 ACTIVE FLT SCHOOLS ON THE FIELD. TRNING IS SERIOUSLY HAMPERED WHEN NOT ALLOWED TO PRACTICE SOME REQUIRED PROCS.

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.