Narrative:

The flight originated at west houston municipal field (iws) at XA00. The destination was stinson field (ssf) just outside of the sat class C airspace south of sat airport. The route of this VFR flight was iws direct ssf via LORAN navigation. The route essentially followed the interstate 10 highway. The san antonio area is a maze of various types of controled or restr airspace. Upon arriving at the first alert area A638 which is about 40 NM from ssf, I turned to a heading of 210 degrees so as not to fly through the alert areas. I remained on this heading for approximately 15 mi until the heading to ssf on the LORAN was 270 degrees. This made it possible to approach ssf without flying through the alert areas or the sat class C airspace. I listened to the stinson ATIS which was not updated at XC00 while I was still 20 NM out. The 2001 airport directory lists the stinson tower as having hours of XA00 to XB00. Since it was XC00, I concluded that the tower facility was now closed for the day. I thought it was odd that the ATIS did not say that the tower had closed. I then called unicom and asked for an airport advisory. There was no response. I then announced my intentions to fly left traffic for runway 9 on both unicom and CTAF on the frequencys that are published on the current sat sectional chart. I reported my position at 10 mi, 5 mi, 1 mi and in the pattern on both frequencys. Just before entering the pattern, I tuned in the ATIS frequency to make sure that it had not been updated. It had not. There was no traffic in the pattern and almost no activity at the airport. I landed on runway 9 and parked and tied down at the base of the tower. I remained at the airport until XD00. At no time was I aware of any activity in the tower. The following day, aug/wed/01, I departed ssf. Upon taxiing to the active runway, I was admonished by the controller for not communicating with him when I arrived on aug/tue/01. He wanted to know how I managed to land without his knowing about it. He never heard my radio calls. He further advised me that he expects all traffic to be handed off to him from sat approach and that there had been no handoff for me. He advised me to use flight following in the future when arriving or departing from san antonio area. I still maintain that communication with approach control was not required in this case since I was never in class C airspace. ATC's desire to work all traffic around class C airspace effectively creates a much larger controled area than is required which I believe is then used by the FAA to unnecessarily justify converting class C airspace to class B airspace. I don't typically request flight following or file VFR flight plans because it very often seems like an imposition on controllers when I request these services and most times it is easiest to just go around airspace than be vectored around it under ATC control.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A SMA PLT LANDED AT SSF WITHOUT A CLRNC, ASSUMING THE TWR WAS CLOSED.

Narrative: THE FLT ORIGINATED AT WEST HOUSTON MUNICIPAL FIELD (IWS) AT XA00. THE DEST WAS STINSON FIELD (SSF) JUST OUTSIDE OF THE SAT CLASS C AIRSPACE S OF SAT ARPT. THE RTE OF THIS VFR FLT WAS IWS DIRECT SSF VIA LORAN NAV. THE RTE ESSENTIALLY FOLLOWED THE INTERSTATE 10 HWY. THE SAN ANTONIO AREA IS A MAZE OF VARIOUS TYPES OF CTLED OR RESTR AIRSPACE. UPON ARRIVING AT THE FIRST ALERT AREA A638 WHICH IS ABOUT 40 NM FROM SSF, I TURNED TO A HDG OF 210 DEGS SO AS NOT TO FLY THROUGH THE ALERT AREAS. I REMAINED ON THIS HDG FOR APPROX 15 MI UNTIL THE HDG TO SSF ON THE LORAN WAS 270 DEGS. THIS MADE IT POSSIBLE TO APCH SSF WITHOUT FLYING THROUGH THE ALERT AREAS OR THE SAT CLASS C AIRSPACE. I LISTENED TO THE STINSON ATIS WHICH WAS NOT UPDATED AT XC00 WHILE I WAS STILL 20 NM OUT. THE 2001 ARPT DIRECTORY LISTS THE STINSON TWR AS HAVING HRS OF XA00 TO XB00. SINCE IT WAS XC00, I CONCLUDED THAT THE TWR FACILITY WAS NOW CLOSED FOR THE DAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS ODD THAT THE ATIS DID NOT SAY THAT THE TWR HAD CLOSED. I THEN CALLED UNICOM AND ASKED FOR AN ARPT ADVISORY. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. I THEN ANNOUNCED MY INTENTIONS TO FLY L TFC FOR RWY 9 ON BOTH UNICOM AND CTAF ON THE FREQS THAT ARE PUBLISHED ON THE CURRENT SAT SECTIONAL CHART. I RPTED MY POS AT 10 MI, 5 MI, 1 MI AND IN THE PATTERN ON BOTH FREQS. JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE PATTERN, I TUNED IN THE ATIS FREQ TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN UPDATED. IT HAD NOT. THERE WAS NO TFC IN THE PATTERN AND ALMOST NO ACTIVITY AT THE ARPT. I LANDED ON RWY 9 AND PARKED AND TIED DOWN AT THE BASE OF THE TWR. I REMAINED AT THE ARPT UNTIL XD00. AT NO TIME WAS I AWARE OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE TWR. THE FOLLOWING DAY, AUG/WED/01, I DEPARTED SSF. UPON TAXIING TO THE ACTIVE RWY, I WAS ADMONISHED BY THE CTLR FOR NOT COMMUNICATING WITH HIM WHEN I ARRIVED ON AUG/TUE/01. HE WANTED TO KNOW HOW I MANAGED TO LAND WITHOUT HIS KNOWING ABOUT IT. HE NEVER HEARD MY RADIO CALLS. HE FURTHER ADVISED ME THAT HE EXPECTS ALL TFC TO BE HANDED OFF TO HIM FROM SAT APCH AND THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO HDOF FOR ME. HE ADVISED ME TO USE FLT FOLLOWING IN THE FUTURE WHEN ARRIVING OR DEPARTING FROM SAN ANTONIO AREA. I STILL MAINTAIN THAT COM WITH APCH CTL WAS NOT REQUIRED IN THIS CASE SINCE I WAS NEVER IN CLASS C AIRSPACE. ATC'S DESIRE TO WORK ALL TFC AROUND CLASS C AIRSPACE EFFECTIVELY CREATES A MUCH LARGER CTLED AREA THAN IS REQUIRED WHICH I BELIEVE IS THEN USED BY THE FAA TO UNNECESSARILY JUSTIFY CONVERTING CLASS C AIRSPACE TO CLASS B AIRSPACE. I DON'T TYPICALLY REQUEST FLT FOLLOWING OR FILE VFR FLT PLANS BECAUSE IT VERY OFTEN SEEMS LIKE AN IMPOSITION ON CTLRS WHEN I REQUEST THESE SVCS AND MOST TIMES IT IS EASIEST TO JUST GO AROUND AIRSPACE THAN BE VECTORED AROUND IT UNDER ATC CTL.

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.