A TB20 PLT ON A TRAINING FLT WITH A SAFETY PLT IS ACCUSED BY TWR OF PERFORMING A TOUCH AND GO WHEN ONLY CLRED FOR A LOW APCH. PLT CLAIMS THE LNDG WAS AUTH UNDER THE 'OPTION' CLAUSE THAT WAS HEARD ON FINAL TO RWY 32 AT STS; CA.

Narrative

I WAS ON THE ILS RWY 32 APCH TO STS. BOTH THE SAFETY PLT AND I HEARD THE STS TWR CTLR STATE 'CLRED FOR THE OPTION.' WE DIDN'T EXPECT THIS; SINCE THERE WAS A SMALL TAILWIND; AND RWYS 14 AND 19 WERE IN USE; AND WE REMARKED ON THIS FACT TO EACH OTHER. I ALSO READ BACK 'CLRED FOR THE OPTION' TO THE CTLR. I CONTINUED THE APCH TO MINIMUMS; CAME OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD; AND DID A TOUCH AND GO. ON THE CLBOUT THE CTLR REBUKED US FOR DOING THE TOUCH AND GO RATHER THAN A LOW APCH. I TOLD HIM THAT BOTH OF US IN THE COCKPIT HEARD HIM SAY 'CLRED FOR THE OPTION.' HE RESPONDED 'NEGATIVE!' I THEN RESPONDED 'LISTEN TO THE TAPE.' HE XFERRED US TO ZOA WHO LATER RELAYED A MESSAGE TO US TO CALL THE STS TWR AFTER LNDG. THE CTLR IS THREATENING TO RPT A PLTDEV; BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS NOT YET LISTENED TO THE TAPE. RADIO RECEPTION WAS GOOD IN THE AIRPLANE. WHILE THE INCIDENT IS A MINOR COM PROB THAT DID NOT RESULT IN A DANGEROUS SIT; THE ENSUING 'ARGUMENT' WAS UNFORTUNATE AND DISTR ME DURING THE CLBOUT FROM THE TOUCH AND GO. BOTH THE CTLR'S REMARKS AND MY OWN; INFLAMED THE SIT; WHICH DID MORE TO COMPROMISE SAFETY THAN THE MISCOM.