PVT PLT OF A PIPER CHEROKEE; PA28RT; LANDED WITHOUT CLRNC DURING A SPECIAL AVIATION GATHERING ACTIVITY. RPTR WAS PREVIOUSLY; DURING ORIGINAL APCH TO ANOTHER RWY; DIRECTED TO GAR BY TWR CTLR AFTER BEING OBSERVED FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE TO ANOTHER ACFT ON FINAL (NMAC).

Narrative

I PARTICIPATED AT THE PLT'S GROUP FLY-IN AT THE FDK ARPT ON JUN/XX/98. WHILE GENERALLY WELL RUN; IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE ATC SYS WAS INCAPABLE OF HANDLING THE VOLUME OF ARRIVING TFC IN A SAFE; ORDERLY FASHION. THE SYS CREATED TEMPORARY CLASS D AIRSPACE AROUND FDK; AND ESTABLISHED APCH; TWR; AND GND FREQS. ALL TFC WAS TO ARRIVE OVER ONE DESIGNATED POINT (MT AIRY); MONITORING THE APCH FREQ. ACFT WOULD BE RELEASED FROM THIS POINT TO THE ARPT; OR TOLD TO CIRCLE IN AN ANNOUNCED PATTERN FOR ANOTHER TRY. ALL RADIO COM WAS TO ORIGINATE FROM THE GND -- ACFT WERE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALL COMS VIA WING ROCKS. ONCE RELEASED FROM MT AIRY; ACFT WERE TO PROCEED TO THE ARPT; MONITORING THE TWR FREQ FOR INSTRUCTIONS. BASED ON THE ABOVE; WE FOUND OURSELVES ON FINAL TO RWY 5; TOO CLOSE TO THE ACFT AHEAD. ATC PROPERLY ORDERED US TO GAR AND MAKE R TFC FOR RWY 30. WE DID; AND LANDED SAFELY; BUT THERE IS DISAGREEMENT BTWN MY COPLT AND MYSELF IF WE WERE EVER PROPERLY CLRED FOR LNDG. WE LANDED; BELIEVING AN UNEXPECTED GAR IN THAT ENVIRONMENT WOULD BE MORE DISRUPTIVE THAN A POSSIBLY UNCLRED LNDG. THE CAP MEMBERS DIRECTING TFC WERE MOST HELPFUL; BUT SOME NEED SOME TRAINING IN HAND SIGNALS. THERE WERE SOME USED I'VE NEVER SEEN DOCUMENTED IN THE AIM. IN CONTRAST; THE DEP PROC SEEMED TO BE HANDLED MUCH MORE SMOOTHLY. NO DOUBT THIS WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A SIMPLER PROCESS. ADDITIONALLY; HOWEVER; THE GND STAFF; MAKING USE OF THE RADIO DURING THE TAXI PROCESS; WAS VERY HELPFUL.