Narrative:

I was the captain on commuter X. After monitoring ATIS, the first officer requested an IFR clearance. The controller replied, 'clearance on request'. After requesting our clearance, we held behind small aircraft Y, a company aircraft. Aircraft Y was holding at echo intersection on the right side. There was plenty of room to pass to the left of aircraft Y. Air carrier Z (IFR) was in position at the end of 36 waiting on the arrival of landing aircraft. Then Z was cleared for takeoff. We assumed that we were the next departure, but instead the controller issued special VFR clrncs. Aircraft Y was launched leaving undeniable access to the runway. Several more special VFR's were launched. Then aircraft called up for special VFR's several mins after our request and were launched. After these aircraft behind us were launched, we requested information on our clearance. The ctrl replied, 'ATC will not issue clearance with specials in the zone'. We asked if it would be quicker to depart on a special and requested one. We then departed on a special VFR clearance. Upon arrival at destination I telephoned bethel tower. The controller that answered was one of 2 controllers involved. I asked if there had been a regulation change concerning IFR preference over special VFR. He said no. His claim was that we were blocked from the runway. We were not asked if we could pass around aircraft Y. The runway was obviously not blocked, and the controllers continued to clear special VFR aircraft for takeoff after Y departed. Further he cleared aircraft for takeoff that had requested clearance long after we had. The controller also stated that, 'even if he had called center they were very busy and we could have been delayed if we had called them.' thus, he did not attempt to obtain our IFR, he intentionally and prejudicially delayed an IFR scheduled commuter flight in favor of other special VFR's. Another company aircraft also was waiting for an IFR and he delayed him as well. I refer you to section 264 in the aim. I would like to request an investigation into this matter since this was a willful and deliberate action. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: callback to reporter was primarily to inform him that ASRS was not authorized to investigate incidents. He says that he was pretty upset at the time and wanted someone (anyone) to look into the situation. Since incident his company chief pilot has visited bethel tower manager and similar incidents have not taken place.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER PLT COMPLAINT REF ATC GIVING PRIORITY TO SPECIAL VFR DEPS.

Narrative: I WAS THE CAPT ON COMMUTER X. AFTER MONITORING ATIS, THE FO REQUESTED AN IFR CLRNC. THE CTLR REPLIED, 'CLRNC ON REQUEST'. AFTER REQUESTING OUR CLRNC, WE HELD BEHIND SMA Y, A COMPANY ACFT. ACFT Y WAS HOLDING AT ECHO INTXN ON THE R SIDE. THERE WAS PLENTY OF ROOM TO PASS TO THE L OF ACFT Y. ACR Z (IFR) WAS IN POS AT THE END OF 36 WAITING ON THE ARR OF LNDG ACFT. THEN Z WAS CLRED FOR TKOF. WE ASSUMED THAT WE WERE THE NEXT DEP, BUT INSTEAD THE CTLR ISSUED SPECIAL VFR CLRNCS. ACFT Y WAS LAUNCHED LEAVING UNDENIABLE ACCESS TO THE RWY. SEVERAL MORE SPECIAL VFR'S WERE LAUNCHED. THEN ACFT CALLED UP FOR SPECIAL VFR'S SEVERAL MINS AFTER OUR REQUEST AND WERE LAUNCHED. AFTER THESE ACFT BEHIND US WERE LAUNCHED, WE REQUESTED INFO ON OUR CLRNC. THE CTRL REPLIED, 'ATC WILL NOT ISSUE CLRNC WITH SPECIALS IN THE ZONE'. WE ASKED IF IT WOULD BE QUICKER TO DEPART ON A SPECIAL AND REQUESTED ONE. WE THEN DEPARTED ON A SPECIAL VFR CLRNC. UPON ARR AT DEST I TELEPHONED BETHEL TWR. THE CTLR THAT ANSWERED WAS ONE OF 2 CTLRS INVOLVED. I ASKED IF THERE HAD BEEN A REG CHANGE CONCERNING IFR PREFERENCE OVER SPECIAL VFR. HE SAID NO. HIS CLAIM WAS THAT WE WERE BLOCKED FROM THE RWY. WE WERE NOT ASKED IF WE COULD PASS AROUND ACFT Y. THE RWY WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT BLOCKED, AND THE CTLRS CONTINUED TO CLR SPECIAL VFR ACFT FOR TKOF AFTER Y DEPARTED. FURTHER HE CLRED ACFT FOR TKOF THAT HAD REQUESTED CLRNC LONG AFTER WE HAD. THE CTLR ALSO STATED THAT, 'EVEN IF HE HAD CALLED CENTER THEY WERE VERY BUSY AND WE COULD HAVE BEEN DELAYED IF WE HAD CALLED THEM.' THUS, HE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN OUR IFR, HE INTENTIONALLY AND PREJUDICIALLY DELAYED AN IFR SCHEDULED COMMUTER FLT IN FAVOR OF OTHER SPECIAL VFR'S. ANOTHER COMPANY ACFT ALSO WAS WAITING FOR AN IFR AND HE DELAYED HIM AS WELL. I REFER YOU TO SECTION 264 IN THE AIM. I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST AN INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER SINCE THIS WAS A WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE ACTION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: CALLBACK TO RPTR WAS PRIMARILY TO INFORM HIM THAT ASRS WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE INCIDENTS. HE SAYS THAT HE WAS PRETTY UPSET AT THE TIME AND WANTED SOMEONE (ANYONE) TO LOOK INTO THE SITUATION. SINCE INCIDENT HIS COMPANY CHIEF PLT HAS VISITED BETHEL TWR MGR AND SIMILAR INCIDENTS HAVE NOT TAKEN PLACE.

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.