Narrative:

I arrived IFR at pompano beach airpark (pmp). I monitored the ATIS which advised landing and departing on runway 24; just changed from runway 33. I was cleared by pmp tower for a right base to 24. The tower cleared me to land on turning final. On short final; within a mile of runway threshold; my wife; in the right seat; suddenly spotted a helicopter crossing directly underneath us. Tower never mentioned this aircraft. Only after that; the tower screamed at the helicopter; telling him about my aircraft being on short final in his flight path. I landed and got cleared to taxi to the FBO. It is my habit; after 40 years and 12;000 hours of flying; to always ask for a repeat clearance to cross any runway; as I approach the runway threshold. The controller sounded annoyed that I would ask that. I should never have been cleared to land with interfering traffic on short final. I should have been advised of the traffic. About four hours later I filed IFR to fmy at 12;000 ft. I called for my clearance on ground frequency. He asked me first if I had the ATIS and I indicated I did. I was given a clearance with the ft. Lauderdale two departure; radar vectors to thndr intersection. Looking at the SID without a clear reference to my destination routing; I felt that this was not the best clearance and would give me little guidance in case of a communication failure. I asked the controller if he had something simpler than that. I was rebuffed. I proceeded with my taxi clearance. It seemed that he was taking me to runway 6 on the taxi. I asked if that was where he was taking me and he acknowledged. There appeared some confusion; so I asked for a progressive taxi; which is the right thing to do. Instead of a progressive; it sounded like another controller came on the line that sounded angry and again asked me if I had the ATIS. My answer was the same; I had it. The right thing to do is to give me a progressive taxi instruction; and not raise his voice and ask my about the ATIS. I needed taxi info. Realizing there was a communication issue with the controller; I then elected that for safety of flight reasons and the prior near-midair that I would be better off on my own. I cancelled my IFR and told the controller that I would proceed VFR. I was cleared for takeoff. During my climbout; I asked for a left turnout. I heard a garbled response. So I asked again; for a left turnout. I got a screaming response of acknowledgement. The ATC system is one that calls for professionalism and clear; distinct communication not personal expressions. It seemed like the controller had an anger management problem. I departed the area. The controller never spoke to me again. I then noticed that my #2 radio was not fully inserted in the panel frame; which might have caused me to miss a message. Some 20 miles from ft. Myers; I called approach. No response. As I got closer; I called approach again. I got an immediate response telling me to 'remain outside charlie airspace until authorized'. The weather was VFR. No other aircraft in all this time was refused approach traffic advisories or entrance into the class C airspace. Several minutes later; standing by; closer to the class C airspace; I again called approach; and I was told 'remain outside charlie airspace; standby'. Since there is no way to stop the aircraft and wait; I was soon over the class C airspace.the controller never called me back. I stayed above the class C airspace and then continued my descent just outside the garmin 530 indicated limit of the class C airspace. I called fmy tower and was immediately told I was in the class C airspace. I responded that I was 10 miles out and the controller fired back that it was 9 miles. Who told him about me? I was told to call the tower when I was on final for runway 23 at 6 miles. I descended below the class C and called the tower on final. There were no other noteworthy events. In review; this was a dangerous and unnecessary series of events: a near midairon short final at pmp; bad manners; anger; unprofessional controllers at pmp- refusal of approach services from ft. Myers approach. If ft. Meyers approach was too busy to provide approach service in VFR conditions; how did they have time for a phone call from pmp telling them to give me a bad time and refuse service? Which I am convinced happened. This is unprofessional; a breach of service; and not in the interest of the controller responsibility and safe flight. This series of events needs to be investigated. There is no room for anger; incompetence; and a manipulation of ATC service in the interest of some vendetta by unprofessional controllers. Clearances should be phrased not in the interest of making it easy for the controller. Instead; they should be purposeful and address eventualities such as a continuance of meaningful flight in case of a communication failure. ATC arrival services must never be refused due to some ploy to exact revenge by a controller. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior. I also question the very existence of the class D airspace at pompano airport. I would have been better off without tower assistance. I would have been more observant and cognizant of the interfering traffic. Instead; I followed my landing instructions with blind confidence. Pompano airport is situated right between two major traffic hubs; namely ft. Lauderdale and palm beach. Transitioning through the area requires avoidance the pompano airspace or another radio call to pompano for local traffic like helicopters. Local helicopter flights more frequently talk with towers; and not approach. The approach in the ft. Lauderdale area is especially busy and directing local helicopter flights would overload an already busy system. This scenario is clearly spelled out by this series of events and the several reroutes during my arrival into the pompano airport area. I am also a helicopter pilot.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AC90 pilot reports a NMAC with a helicopter on short final to Runway 24 at PMP and continues to landing. Animosity develops between the reporter and PMP Controllers which later spills over to FMY Controllers.

Narrative: I arrived IFR at Pompano Beach Airpark (PMP). I monitored the ATIS which advised landing and departing on Runway 24; just changed from Runway 33. I was cleared by PMP Tower for a right base to 24. The Tower cleared me to land on turning final. On short final; within a mile of runway threshold; my wife; in the right seat; suddenly spotted a helicopter crossing directly underneath us. Tower never mentioned this aircraft. ONLY AFTER THAT; the Tower screamed at the helicopter; telling him about my aircraft being on short final in his flight path. I landed and got cleared to taxi to the FBO. It is my habit; after 40 years and 12;000 hours of flying; to ALWAYS ask for a repeat clearance to cross any runway; as I approach the runway threshold. The Controller sounded annoyed that I would ask that. I SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CLEARED TO LAND WITH INTERFERING TRAFFIC ON SHORT FINAL. I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE TRAFFIC. About four hours later I filed IFR to FMY at 12;000 FT. I called for my clearance on Ground frequency. He asked me first if I had the ATIS and I indicated I did. I was given a clearance with the Ft. Lauderdale Two Departure; radar vectors to THNDR Intersection. Looking at the SID without a clear reference to my destination routing; I felt that this was not the best clearance and would give me little guidance in case of a communication failure. I asked the Controller if he had something simpler than that. I was rebuffed. I proceeded with my taxi clearance. It seemed that he was taking me to Runway 6 on the taxi. I asked if that was where he was taking me and he acknowledged. There appeared some confusion; so I asked for a progressive taxi; which is the right thing to do. Instead of a progressive; it sounded like another Controller came on the line that sounded angry and again asked me if I had the ATIS. My answer was the same; I had it. The RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO GIVE ME A PROGRESSIVE TAXI INSTRUCTION; and not raise his voice and ask my about the ATIS. I needed taxi info. Realizing there was a communication issue with the Controller; I then elected that for safety of flight reasons and the prior near-midair that I would be better off on my own. I cancelled my IFR and told the Controller that I would proceed VFR. I was cleared for takeoff. During my climbout; I asked for a left turnout. I heard a garbled response. So I asked again; for a left turnout. I got a screaming response of acknowledgement. The ATC SYSTEM IS ONE THAT CALLS FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND CLEAR; DISTINCT COMMUNICATION not personal expressions. It seemed like the Controller had an anger management problem. I departed the area. The Controller never spoke to me again. I then noticed that my #2 radio was not fully inserted in the panel frame; which might have caused me to miss a message. Some 20 miles from Ft. Myers; I called Approach. No response. As I got closer; I called Approach again. I got an immediate response telling me to 'remain outside Charlie airspace until authorized'. The weather was VFR. No other aircraft in all this time was refused approach traffic advisories or entrance into the Class C Airspace. Several minutes later; standing by; closer to the Class C Airspace; I again called Approach; and I was told 'remain outside Charlie Airspace; standby'. Since there is no way to stop the aircraft and wait; I was soon over the Class C Airspace.The Controller never called me back. I stayed above the Class C Airspace and then continued my descent just outside the Garmin 530 indicated limit of the Class C Airspace. I called FMY Tower and was immediately told I was in the Class C Airspace. I responded that I was 10 miles out and the Controller fired back that it was 9 miles. Who told him about me? I was told to call the Tower when I was on final for Runway 23 at 6 miles. I descended below the Class C and called the Tower on final. There were no other noteworthy events. In review; this was a dangerous and unnecessary series of events: a near midairon short final at PMP; bad manners; anger; unprofessional controllers at PMP- refusal of approach services from Ft. Myers Approach. If Ft. Meyers Approach was too busy to provide approach service in VFR conditions; how did they have time for a phone call from PMP telling them to give me a bad time and refuse service? Which I am convinced happened. This is unprofessional; a breach of service; and not in the interest of the controller responsibility and safe flight. This series of events needs to be investigated. There is no room for anger; incompetence; and a manipulation of ATC service in the interest of some vendetta by unprofessional controllers. Clearances should be phrased not in the interest of making it easy for the controller. Instead; they should be purposeful and address eventualities such as a continuance of meaningful flight in case of a communication failure. ATC arrival services must never be refused due to some ploy to exact revenge by a controller. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior. I also question the very existence of the Class D Airspace at Pompano Airport. I would have been better off without Tower assistance. I would have been more observant and cognizant of the interfering traffic. Instead; I followed my landing instructions with blind confidence. Pompano airport is situated right between two major traffic hubs; namely FT. Lauderdale and Palm Beach. Transitioning through the area requires avoidance the Pompano Airspace or another radio call to Pompano for local traffic like helicopters. Local helicopter flights more frequently talk with Towers; and not Approach. The approach in the Ft. Lauderdale area is especially busy and directing local helicopter flights would overload an already busy system. This scenario is clearly spelled out by this series of events and the several reroutes during my arrival into the Pompano Airport area. I am also a helicopter pilot.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.