BE35 ON DOWNWIND AT STS EXPERIENCED NMAC WITH HELI FLYING BELOW; NO TFC PROVIDED BY TWR.

Narrative

I WAS RECEIVING FLT FOLLOWING FROM ZOA AND SWITCHED TO THE SANTA ROSA TWR ABOUT 10 MI TO THE SE. IT WAS WINDY; ATIS RPTED WIND 220 DEGS AT 14 KTS. THE TWR GAVE ME L TFC FOR RWY 19 WHICH PUT ME ON A 45 DEG ENTRY. WHEN I WAS ABOUT 2 MI OUT THE TWR CLRED A TWIN ENG TURBOPROP COMMUTER TO DEPART RWY 14. THIS PUT US HEAD-TO-HEAD. THE CTLR POINTED OUT TFC TO EACH OF US; AND THE VISIBILITY WAS GOOD; SO IT WAS EASY ENOUGH TO SEE AND AVOID EACH OTHER. HOWEVER; I QUESTION THE PRACTICE OF ARRANGING HEAD-ON MEETINGS OF ACFT. IT'S CONTRARY TO THE WHOLE IDEA OF TFC PATTERNS. I STEERED A LITTLE TO THE R TO INCREASE SEPARATION; AND SO INFORMED THE TWR. AFTER I TURNED DOWNWIND; AND AS I WAS BEGINNING MY DSCNT FROM PATTERN ALT; A HELI APPEARED TO MY R AND PASSED DIRECTLY UNDER MY ACFT. I ESTIMATE THE VERT SEPARATION TO BE 300 FT. THERE WAS NO HORIZ SEPARATION. I ASKED THE TWR IF HE WAS TALKING TO THE HELI AND HIS FIRST RESPONSE WAS THAT HE HAD BEEN ON THE LANDLINE AND TO SAY AGAIN. WHEN I ASKED AGAIN; THE TWR CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE HELI. THE HELI RPTED THAT HE HAD MY ACFT IN SIGHT AND HAD DSNDED TO 400 FT TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION. AFTER LNDG; I ASKED GND CTL FOR THE TWR'S PHONE NUMBER; AND CALLED THEM ABOUT 1 HR LATER. I SPOKE TO THE CTLR WHO HAD BEEN ON DUTY DURING MY APCH. I SAID THAT I WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY MY APCH HAD BEEN HANDLED. THIS GUY WAS VERY DEFENSIVE. HE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM ME; HEARING ANY OF MY SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW THE SITUATION COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED BETTER; OR IN DISCUSSING THE SITUATION IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. HE PROCEEDED TO TELL ME THAT SEPARATION WAS NOT PROVIDED IN ATA'S; ASKED ME IF I WAS A CTLR; TOLD ME THAT HE WAS ALSO A PLT AND HAD ALMOST 3000 HRS. THIS GUY IS A KNOW-IT-ALL; AND HAS A DANGEROUS ATTITUDE. HE SAID THAT TFC POINTOUTS ARE ON A WORKLOAD PERMITTING BASIS. I WONDER WHAT WAS SO IMPORTANT ON THE LANDLINE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO POINTOUT THE HELI TFC TO ME. I AM NOT A CTLR; BUT I DO KNOW THAT SEPARATION IS NOT PROVIDED IN CLASS D AIRSPACE; BUT CAN'T ATC ARRANGE TFC TO FLOW IN ROUGHLY THE SAME DIRECTION SO THAT THERE IS TIME TO SEE AND AVOID OTHER TFC? THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA OF TFC PATTERNS. POINTING OUT TFC MAY BE OPTIONAL; BUT IT IS IMPORTANT AND SHOULD BE GIVEN A HIGH PRIORITY BY TWR CTLRS. WHETHER OR NOT AN FAR WAS VIOLATED; ARRANGING TFC TO MEET AT ABRUPT ANGLES OR HEAD-ON IS DANGEROUS AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. I BELIEVE THAT HELIS ARE SUPPOSED TO AVOID THE FLOW OF FIXED WING ACFT AND PERHAPS FAILURE TO DO SO LED TO THIS INCIDENT. IN ANY CASE I THINK THE CTLR WASN'T PAYING ATTN TO TFC BECAUSE IT WAS LIGHT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN. IN ADDITION; THE CTLR'S ATTITUDE IS APPALLING.