A LCL CTLR RPT ON A LEVEL OF INTIMIDATION IMPOSED UPON HIM BY THE AIR TFC MGR DURING A REVIEW OF AN UNAUTH LNDG BY A PA28 AT ILG; DE.

Narrative

ON APR/FRI/00; A PA28 ACFT LANDED ON RWY 19 WITHOUT A LNDG CLRNC. I ADVISED THE CIC; AND HE FILED A PLTDEV. ON APR/MON/00 I WAS INSTRUCTED TO RPT TO THE AIR TFC MGR'S OFFICE. WITH THE AIR TFC MGR PRESENT; THE OPERATIONAL SUPVR ADVISED ME THAT THEY HAD DECIDED NOT TO FORWARD THIS INCIDENT TO FSDO. HE FELT THAT; IN LISTENING TO THE TAPE RECORDING; I WAS NOT 'SQUEAKY CLEAN.' HE POINTED OUT THAT I DID NOT ONCE IDENT THE FACILITY IN MY RADIO XMISSIONS -- THAT SINCE I ALSO HAD A TOUCH-AND-GO OP IN PROGRESS ON RWY 32; ASSIGNING RWY 19 TO ACFT WAS A POTENTIAL CONFLICTION. HE ALSO SAID FSDO WOULD QUESTION WHY I HAD NOT OBSERVED PRIOR TO HIS LNDG. ACFT DID NOT RPT 2 MI FINAL; AS INSTRUCTED. ON APR/TUE/00 I REQUESTED WITH THE AIR TFC MGR TO PERMIT ME TO LISTEN TO THE TAPE RECORDING. I HEARD MYSELF IDENT THE FACILITY ON INITIAL CONTACT EACH AND EVERY TIME. FURTHERMORE; I HEARD NOTHING THAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT TO QUESTION MY PROFESSIONAL CREDIBILITY. WHEN I ADVISED THE AIR TFC MGR OF THIS; HE SAID THEY HAD; IN FACT; DECIDED TO FORWARD THE INCIDENT TO FSDO. I BELIEVE OUR MEETING IN THE MGR'S OFFICE ON APR/MON/00 WAS A CALCULATED ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE ME TO NOT PRESS THE ISSUE. THEY TRIED TO INTIMIDATE ME BY THE BOGUS REASONS MENTIONED. WHEN THEY REALIZED THAT I WAS FILING A NASA ASRS RPT; AND WHEN I ASKED TO HEAR THE TAPES; THEY FELT THAT THEY'D BETTER REVERSE THEIR EARLIER DECISION TO NOT FILE WITH FSDO. INTERESTINGLY; I WOULD NOT HAVE QUESTIONED MGMNT'S DECISION TO NOT FILE. THEY COULD'VE SIMPLY ADVISED ME OF THEIR DECISION WITHOUT EXPLANATION. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND MGMNT AGENDA BEHIND THIS. I ONLY KNOW THAT THIS RWY INCURSION INCIDENT SEEMED UNIMPORTANT TO THEM.