Narrative:

On a VFR flight from smo, ca, to cma, ca, at XA00 on jul/tue/96, in my cessna cardinal rg, I contacted mugu approach control (124.7) about 15 mi outside of cma, per cma ATIS instructions (119.2). I was given a discrete squawk code by mugu approach and was followed through point mugu NAS airport space until I was told to contact cma tower when I was just ready to turn onto the 45 degree entry for left pattern at the 800 ft pattern altitude. Just prior to handoff, mugu pointed out a metroliner at 1400 ft that was crossing my path. Contact with cma tower was established as I was turning onto the 45 degree. I was informed of another aircraft in the pattern -- one which I already had spotted. I was told to stay wide of him on downwind, to follow him, and was given clearance to land. After an uneventful approach and landing, and upon calling ground control after vacating the runway, I was asked to copy the tower's telephone number and call after tiedown, which I did. The tower person seemed perturbed that my first contact with the tower was when I was about to turn onto the 45 degree, and not 5 mi out. I informed him that I was not handed off by mugu approach until that point. It was then that I learned that mugu seldom, if ever, calls cma tower about VFR arrs that they are handling. Also, cma tower does not have radar in their cabin attendant to observe approaching aircraft. I was requested that, in the future, I should inform cma tower at least 5 mi out, even if it requires me to leave mugu's control. Cma is not a strange airport to me. I have flown to it many times in the past in a similar manner, but never had to call the tower before. I feel that a dangerous situation exists here, where one controller is not coordinating with another in an area that could be under the control of either controling facility. Point mugu and cma airports are within close proximity, and the VFR approach from the southeast to cma crosses the approach path to point mugu within the 5 mi radius of cma. It seems to me that the reason for calling mugu approach for cma ATIS instructions is to keep VFR aircraft approaching cma from tangling with the high performance aircraft going into the NAS at point mugu, since the 2 approachs intersect at close proximity to each facility. In past flts, mugu has had to vector me on a few occasions away from conflicting military aircraft going into point mugu before turning me over to cma tower. For the controllers at both facilities not to be in coordination raises serious doubts in my mind about the safety of the situation in that area. In the cordial phone conversation, he told me that either he or his tower chief would talk to mugu approach and try to work things out. I suggest that a follow-up be made by FAA supervisory personnel to ensure that a potentially dangerous situation is recognized, idented and corrected.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR MADE CONTACT WITH THE CTL TWR INSIDE OF THE REQUIRED 5 MI AND AFTER BEING HANDLED BY THE APCH FACILITY. RPTR THOUGHT THAT THE APCH FACILITY COORD THE ARR WITH THE CTL TWR.

Narrative: ON A VFR FLT FROM SMO, CA, TO CMA, CA, AT XA00 ON JUL/TUE/96, IN MY CESSNA CARDINAL RG, I CONTACTED MUGU APCH CTL (124.7) ABOUT 15 MI OUTSIDE OF CMA, PER CMA ATIS INSTRUCTIONS (119.2). I WAS GIVEN A DISCRETE SQUAWK CODE BY MUGU APCH AND WAS FOLLOWED THROUGH POINT MUGU NAS ARPT SPACE UNTIL I WAS TOLD TO CONTACT CMA TWR WHEN I WAS JUST READY TO TURN ONTO THE 45 DEG ENTRY FOR L PATTERN AT THE 800 FT PATTERN ALT. JUST PRIOR TO HDOF, MUGU POINTED OUT A METROLINER AT 1400 FT THAT WAS XING MY PATH. CONTACT WITH CMA TWR WAS ESTABLISHED AS I WAS TURNING ONTO THE 45 DEG. I WAS INFORMED OF ANOTHER ACFT IN THE PATTERN -- ONE WHICH I ALREADY HAD SPOTTED. I WAS TOLD TO STAY WIDE OF HIM ON DOWNWIND, TO FOLLOW HIM, AND WAS GIVEN CLRNC TO LAND. AFTER AN UNEVENTFUL APCH AND LNDG, AND UPON CALLING GND CTL AFTER VACATING THE RWY, I WAS ASKED TO COPY THE TWR'S TELEPHONE NUMBER AND CALL AFTER TIEDOWN, WHICH I DID. THE TWR PERSON SEEMED PERTURBED THAT MY FIRST CONTACT WITH THE TWR WAS WHEN I WAS ABOUT TO TURN ONTO THE 45 DEG, AND NOT 5 MI OUT. I INFORMED HIM THAT I WAS NOT HANDED OFF BY MUGU APCH UNTIL THAT POINT. IT WAS THEN THAT I LEARNED THAT MUGU SELDOM, IF EVER, CALLS CMA TWR ABOUT VFR ARRS THAT THEY ARE HANDLING. ALSO, CMA TWR DOES NOT HAVE RADAR IN THEIR CAB TO OBSERVE APCHING ACFT. I WAS REQUESTED THAT, IN THE FUTURE, I SHOULD INFORM CMA TWR AT LEAST 5 MI OUT, EVEN IF IT REQUIRES ME TO LEAVE MUGU'S CTL. CMA IS NOT A STRANGE ARPT TO ME. I HAVE FLOWN TO IT MANY TIMES IN THE PAST IN A SIMILAR MANNER, BUT NEVER HAD TO CALL THE TWR BEFORE. I FEEL THAT A DANGEROUS SIT EXISTS HERE, WHERE ONE CTLR IS NOT COORDINATING WITH ANOTHER IN AN AREA THAT COULD BE UNDER THE CTL OF EITHER CTLING FACILITY. POINT MUGU AND CMA ARPTS ARE WITHIN CLOSE PROX, AND THE VFR APCH FROM THE SE TO CMA CROSSES THE APCH PATH TO POINT MUGU WITHIN THE 5 MI RADIUS OF CMA. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE REASON FOR CALLING MUGU APCH FOR CMA ATIS INSTRUCTIONS IS TO KEEP VFR ACFT APCHING CMA FROM TANGLING WITH THE HIGH PERFORMANCE ACFT GOING INTO THE NAS AT POINT MUGU, SINCE THE 2 APCHS INTERSECT AT CLOSE PROX TO EACH FACILITY. IN PAST FLTS, MUGU HAS HAD TO VECTOR ME ON A FEW OCCASIONS AWAY FROM CONFLICTING MIL ACFT GOING INTO POINT MUGU BEFORE TURNING ME OVER TO CMA TWR. FOR THE CTLRS AT BOTH FACILITIES NOT TO BE IN COORD RAISES SERIOUS DOUBTS IN MY MIND ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE SIT IN THAT AREA. IN THE CORDIAL PHONE CONVERSATION, HE TOLD ME THAT EITHER HE OR HIS TWR CHIEF WOULD TALK TO MUGU APCH AND TRY TO WORK THINGS OUT. I SUGGEST THAT A FOLLOW-UP BE MADE BY FAA SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL TO ENSURE THAT A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SIT IS RECOGNIZED, IDENTED AND CORRECTED.

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.