HDG TRACK DEV IN A PLTDEV AND NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC INSTRUCTION.

Narrative

AT APPROX 8 NM ESE OF ZZZ ARPT I CALLED TWR WITH MY POS AND TOLD THEM I WAS INBOUND FOR LNDG. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO CONTINUE INBOUND FOR A MODIFIED R BASE FOR LNDG RWY 30 AND TO CALL A 3 MI FINAL FOR 30 AND THAT THERE WAS TFC RPTED BY CTR 2 MINS FROM XYZ NDB; WHICH IS 10 NM FROM THE ARPT AND PART OF THE ILS RWY 27 APCH. AT THIS POINT I TURNED INBOUND TO THE ARPT WHICH COINCIDENTALLY ALIGNED ME WITH RWY 27. THE TFC FOR THE ILS APCH THEN CHKED IN. BY THE TIME THE TFC (AN SMA) AND TWR FINISHED TALKING; I WAS 3 MI OUT FROM THE ARPT; ALIGNED WITH RWY 27 AND READY TO CALL A MODIFIED R BASE. I MADE THIS CALL TO THE TWR BUT WAS STEPPED ON BY ANOTHER RADIO CALL. RATHER THAN REPEAT THE CALL; I TOLD THE TWR I WAS NOW ON A 2 MI FINAL FOR RWY 27 IF IT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. THE TWR OPERATOR SAID THAT IT WASN'T TODAY; BUT IN THE FUTURE IF I WANTED TO CHANGE ASSIGNED RWYS; THAT I SHOULD ASK FOR IT UPON BEING ASSIGNED THE RWY. UPON LNDG HE ASKED FOR MY FULL REGISTRATION NUMBER. AT THIS POINT I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO HIM WHAT HAPPENED AND HE TOLD ME TO CALL THE TWR BY TELEPHONE. WHEN I CALLED THE TWR; THE SUPVR ANSWERED AND ASKED ME FOR MY VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED. HE THEN ASKED ME IF I FELT THE TWR CTLR HAD BEEN ABUSIVE BECAUSE HE HAD A HISTORY OF BEING ABUSIVE TO PLTS. I REPLIED I HAD BEEN REPRIMANDED BY BETTER AND THAT I FELT WHAT I HAD DONE DID NOT WARRANT THIS KIND OF REACTION. HE REPLIED THAT THE CTLR DID NOT THINK THAT THE FSDO WAS DOING THEIR JOBS AND THE MORE THAT WAS WRITTEN UP; THE MORE THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO. THE ILS TFC LANDED APPROX 7 MINS AFTER I LANDED. THERE WAS NO OTHER TFC AT THE ARPT. I BELIEVE THE CTLR THOUGHT THAT I WAS MORE S OF THE ILS COURSE THAN I ACTUALLY WAS. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF HIS INTENTION WAS TO KEEP ME CLR OF THE APCH COURSE; HE COULD HAVE INSTRUCTED ME TO DO SO. I ALSO FEEL THAT BEING A HELI AND NOT ACTUALLY NEEDING A RWY TO LAND ON AND WITH NO OTHER TFC IN THE ATA; THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS INCIDENT WAS PHRASEOLOGY AND THE CONFUSION RESULTING FROM POOR COM.