PLT INBOUND TO LAND WHP; A CONTRACT TWR; HAS DIFFICULTY ESTABLISHING CONTACT WITH THE LOCAL CTLR.

Date: 2002-03 · Aircraft: Navion Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model · Phase: approach

Anomalies: inflight-event-encounter-weather-turbulence|other-frequency-congestion

Synopsis

PLT INBOUND TO LAND WHP; A CONTRACT TWR; HAS DIFFICULTY ESTABLISHING CONTACT WITH THE LOCAL CTLR.

Narrative

WHITEMAN (WHP) TWR OPERATOR DID NOT RESPOND TO MY VFR REPORTING POINTS ON APCH IN A TIMELY MANNER NEARLY CAUSING ME TO BUST BURBANK (CLASS C). WHEN HE FINALLY DID RESPOND HE WAS OFFENSIVE; ASKING ME WHY I DIDN'T HEAR HIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL TFC TO HOLD XMISSION. HE NEVER ADDRESSED MY ACFT. FURTHERMORE; IT IS UNSAFE PRACTICE FOR AN ARPT TO TELL ALL INCOMING TO HOLD XMISSION UNLESS THAT ARPT IS DECLARING AN EMER. OTHER PLTS HAVE HAD TROUBLE AT (WHP) DUE TO THE DETERIORATING VISIBILITY FROM MINIMUM 3 MILES RPTED ON TKOF TO BTWN 1-2 MILES ON APCH TO LNDG AT (WHP) I WAS RELUCTANT TO CONTINUE NORTH BOUND (THE ONLY RTE AVAILABLE WITHOUT BUSTING VAN NUYS AIRSPACE CLASS D TO THE WEST OR BURBANK TO THE E AND S.) I CONTINUED ON A BASE LEG APCH TO (WHP) WITHOUT ANY CONTACT WITH THE TWR READY TO FLY OVER THE ARPT AT PATTERN ALTITUDE READY TO SQUAWK RADIO FAILURE (I ASSUMED) WHEN WHITEMAN FINALLY RESPONDED; ASKING ME WHY I HADN'T HEARD THE FIRST XMISSION FOR ALL TFC TO 'HOLD' XMISSION. (WHICH I HADN'T.) THIS I THOUGHT WAS AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST BY THE TWR IN THE FACE OF THE POOR VISIBILITY. RESPONSE TIME BY THE TWR SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN MORE THAN 10 SECS. IT NEVER HAS IN THE PAST. IF THE ARPT IS GETTING BUSIER; THEY NEED TO HIRE MORE CTLRS AND POSSIBLY UPGRADE TO A RADAR TRANSPONDER FACILITY.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.