EC135 HELI PLT LNDG AT LCL HOSPITAL EXPERIENCED CONFLICT WITH CL60 ON VISUAL APCH AT ZZZ ARPT.

Narrative

I WAS CAPT OF AN EMS HELI ON A MISSION FROM ZZZ1 MEDICAL CTR TO AN ACCIDENT SCENE. OUR HOSPITAL PAD IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ZZZ ARPT CLASS D AIRSPACE BOUNDARIES. WE COORD AT TKOF BY RADIO WITH TWR TO TRANSITION THROUGH THE AIRSPACE FOR EACH DEP. UPON RETURN; I CALLED TWR 12 MI S OF ZZZ AT 2500 FT FOR THE TRANSITION; NBOUND; TO THE HOSPITAL AND USED THE LIFEGUARD PREFIX TO MY CALL SIGN. I WAS GIVEN THE NORMAL TRANSITION INSTRUCTIONS THROUGH THE CLASS D AIRSPACE DIRECT TO THE PAD. AS I APCHED ZZZ; TWR GAVE AN IFR INBOUND CHALLENGER BIZJET CLRNC FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 25 AND ASKED IF I HAD THE JET IN SIGHT. I RESPONDED THAT I DID; AND WAS ADVISED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL CONTACT AND SEPARATION FROM THE JET. I DID SO; AND CONTINUED MY DIRECT FLT TO THE HOSPITAL. THE CHALLENGER FLEW A STANDARD RECTANGULAR PATTERN AFTER PASSING OVERHEAD THE ARPT; USING L TURNS. AS THE CHALLENGER TURNED FINAL; IT BECAME APPARENT THAT OUR COMBINED SPD AND GND TRACKS WOULD BRING US CLOSER TOGETHER THAN IS NORMALLY DESIRED. I CALLED TWR TO ADVISE THAT I HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT AND WAS INITIATING A DSCNT INTO THE HOSPITAL PAD TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SEPARATION. APPARENTLY BASED ON A SUBSEQUENT PHONE CALL WITH THE TWR CTLR; HE HAD BECOME BUSY AND DISTR AND DID NOT SEE OUR CONVERGENCE DEVELOPING. WHEN HE DID RE-ESTABLISH VISUAL CONTACT; HIS VIEWING ANGLE DOWN RWY 25 CAUSED HIM TO THINK THAT AN NMAC WAS POSSIBLE. THE CTLR WAS MODERATELY UPSET WITH ME; IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT I HAD COMPLIED WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS AND HAD INITIATED CORRECTIVE ACTION TO ENSURE ADEQUATE; IF MINIMAL; SEPARATION. I FEEL THAT THE SIT; WHILE UPSETTING TO THE CTLR; WAS NOT IN FACT AS POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS AS HIS PERCEPTION; AND THAT THE ENTIRE SIT DEVELOPED DUE TO HIS INAPPROPRIATE HANDLING OF VFR TFC. HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO BOTH ACFT RESULTED IN A FORESEEABLE; AND THUS AVOIDABLE; CONFLICT. AS A LIFEGUARD ACFT; I REALIZE THAT I AM NOT TO EXPECT SPECIAL HANDLING. IN THIS CASE; COMPLIANCE WITH TWR INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED DIRECT PLACED MY ACFT IN CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER ARRIVING ACFT. BY SIMPLY AMENDING MY CLRNC/INSTRUCTIONS; OR BY ASKING THE CHALLENGER TO EXTEND HIS DOWNWIND LEG SLIGHTLY; THE CTLR COULD HAVE AVOIDED THIS CONFLICT ALTOGETHER. THE CHALLENGER CREW MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE AWARE AND SIMPLY EXTENDED THEIR DOWNWIND TOO; BUT AS A NON LCL CREW; THEY COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO DO SO AND; IN MY OPINION; ARE NOT AT FAULT. MY JUDGEMENT IS THAT THE CTLR BECAME DISTR BY OTHER DUTIES; AFTER GIVING CLRNCS TO 2 ACFT THAT HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WOULD RESULT IN A COLLISION HAZARD. FAILING TO RECOGNIZE HIS INITIAL ERROR; HIS DIVERTED ATTN ALLOWED THE CONVERGENCE TO DEVELOP UNTIL I FELT THAT ACTION WAS NECESSARY. HAVING TAKEN THE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF BOTH ACFT; AND HAVING ADVISED THE CTLR OF THAT ACTION; THE CTLR NOW SEEMS TO HOLD THE OPINION THAT HE DID NOTHING WRONG; THAT ANY POTENTIAL HAZARD WAS MY FAULT; AND THAT MY ACTIONS TO REDUCE THE HAZARD WERE INAPPROPRIATE. GIVEN THE CURRENT REGULATORY/ENFORCEMENT CLIMATE; A USEFUL DIALOGUE WITH ATC REGARDING IMPROVED AND SAFER PROCS IS NOT POSSIBLE. NO ONE CAN AFFORD TO ACKNOWLEDGE AN ERROR OR ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY; BECAUSE IT COULD COST THEM THEIR JOB. I WANT TO HELP; BUT THIS IS THE ONLY MECHANISM THAT I TRUST.