|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : opf.airport|
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : mia.tracon|
tower : opf.tower
|Operator||general aviation : instructional|
|Make Model Name||Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 91|
|Flight Phase||descent : approach|
ground : taxi
landing : roll
|Route In Use||arrival : on vectors|
|Function||instruction : instructor|
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
pilot : cfi
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 200|
flight time total : 27000
flight time type : 8000
|Function||instruction : trainee|
|Anomaly||non adherence : clearance|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||controller : issued new clearance|
|Problem Areas||Flight Crew Human Performance|
ATC Human Performance
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
On the subject day, I was administrating a flight test to an applicant for a flight instructor-instrument rating. One of the requirements is for the applicant to demonstrate a precision approach to a student, as well as to fly a non-precision approach, under the hood, a partial panel. We had completed the precision approach (runway 19 at opf) and flew northwest to the practice area. I then requested a localizer approach to runway 12 at opf. At that time of day approach control is very busy with departures from mia. He either didn't hear the request for, or ignored the request for runway 12, for he gave us a vector heading for runway 9L. This approach was about 12-15 mi from our position. In addition, there were several cpr jets on approach to opf. I then cancelled the request and decided to make the approach to runway 12 under VFR. At that time we were 10 mi northwest of opf. I called the tower with the request for runway 12. I had been listening to the approach control frequency as well as opf tower and had a good idea of the traffic situation. My plan was to make the approach to runway 12 and land, spacing between 2 jets which was 2 mi apart. However, the tower apparently cleared us to runway 9R. I didn't hear this because the applicant was demonstrating aloud the instructional procedures for the approach. We continued the approach until approximately 3 mi northwest, at which time I asked for further clearance. Tower then angrily informed me that I had been cleared to runway 9R. We then turned wbound for several mi, then sbound and finally eastbound on the final approach to runway 9R. The landing was uneventful. Upon exiting the runway (northbound) we were instructed to hold short of runway 12. I acknowledged by using the tail number. We were then admonished, in a very aggressive tone, to read back the 'hold short' clearance. After clearing to runway 17, we were then cleared to taxi to the ramp via taxiway that goes nowhere near our FBO. This was a totally unnecessary event apparently caused by a lack of good communication. The tower at opf is a privatized facility. I must say that these types of problems did not exist when this was an FAA tower. All the operators (tower) appear to give the impression that any radio call is an imposition. During the aforementioned incident, there was at least one other angry and sarcastic comment made to another aircraft. For my part, I obviously know that the 'hold short' clearance is required. I realize that I should not let my emotions interfere with proper procedure.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: C172 LNDG OPF APCHED THE WRONG RWY DURING TRAINING FLT.
Narrative: ON THE SUBJECT DAY, I WAS ADMINISTRATING A FLT TEST TO AN APPLICANT FOR A FLT INSTRUCTOR-INST RATING. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE A PRECISION APCH TO A STUDENT, AS WELL AS TO FLY A NON-PRECISION APCH, UNDER THE HOOD, A PARTIAL PANEL. WE HAD COMPLETED THE PRECISION APCH (RWY 19 AT OPF) AND FLEW NW TO THE PRACTICE AREA. I THEN REQUESTED A LOC APCH TO RWY 12 AT OPF. AT THAT TIME OF DAY APCH CTL IS VERY BUSY WITH DEPS FROM MIA. HE EITHER DIDN'T HEAR THE REQUEST FOR, OR IGNORED THE REQUEST FOR RWY 12, FOR HE GAVE US A VECTOR HEADING FOR RWY 9L. THIS APCH WAS ABOUT 12-15 MI FROM OUR POS. IN ADDITION, THERE WERE SEVERAL CPR JETS ON APCH TO OPF. I THEN CANCELLED THE REQUEST AND DECIDED TO MAKE THE APCH TO RWY 12 UNDER VFR. AT THAT TIME WE WERE 10 MI NW OF OPF. I CALLED THE TWR WITH THE REQUEST FOR RWY 12. I HAD BEEN LISTENING TO THE APCH CTL FREQ AS WELL AS OPF TWR AND HAD A GOOD IDEA OF THE TFC SIT. MY PLAN WAS TO MAKE THE APCH TO RWY 12 AND LAND, SPACING BTWN 2 JETS WHICH WAS 2 MI APART. HOWEVER, THE TWR APPARENTLY CLRED US TO RWY 9R. I DIDN'T HEAR THIS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WAS DEMONSTRATING ALOUD THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROCS FOR THE APCH. WE CONTINUED THE APCH UNTIL APPROX 3 MI NW, AT WHICH TIME I ASKED FOR FURTHER CLRNC. TWR THEN ANGRILY INFORMED ME THAT I HAD BEEN CLRED TO RWY 9R. WE THEN TURNED WBOUND FOR SEVERAL MI, THEN SBOUND AND FINALLY EBOUND ON THE FINAL APCH TO RWY 9R. THE LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL. UPON EXITING THE RWY (NBOUND) WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 12. I ACKNOWLEDGED BY USING THE TAIL NUMBER. WE WERE THEN ADMONISHED, IN A VERY AGGRESSIVE TONE, TO READ BACK THE 'HOLD SHORT' CLRNC. AFTER CLRING TO RWY 17, WE WERE THEN CLRED TO TAXI TO THE RAMP VIA TXWY THAT GOES NOWHERE NEAR OUR FBO. THIS WAS A TOTALLY UNNECESSARY EVENT APPARENTLY CAUSED BY A LACK OF GOOD COM. THE TWR AT OPF IS A PRIVATIZED FACILITY. I MUST SAY THAT THESE TYPES OF PROBS DID NOT EXIST WHEN THIS WAS AN FAA TWR. ALL THE OPERATORS (TWR) APPEAR TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT ANY RADIO CALL IS AN IMPOSITION. DURING THE AFOREMENTIONED INCIDENT, THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE OTHER ANGRY AND SARCASTIC COMMENT MADE TO ANOTHER ACFT. FOR MY PART, I OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT THE 'HOLD SHORT' CLRNC IS REQUIRED. I REALIZE THAT I SHOULD NOT LET MY EMOTIONS INTERFERE WITH PROPER PROC.
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.