Narrative:

The occurrence related below occurred on air carrier X, phl bdr. The last assignment from ZNY was 'descend to 3000'.' we were at 6000' at the time. The clearance was 3000' instead of the normal 2000' due to opp direction traffic at 2500'. At 8.8 mi out we called field in sight. ZNY approach cleared us for the visibility. I called bdr tower at 5.6 out for a left base. The tower requested we enter a left downwind. I responded roger however we were on a left base at that time and would like to land from that position. The tower ignored the request and again instructed us to enter a left downwind. I turned to the left to allow room for the proper downwind entry and arrested my descent at 3000' due to the congestion in the air traffic area. Just prior to turning inbound on 45 degrees, the tower asked my altitude, I responded 3000'. They asked, 'why?' I responded that I was maneuvering for a proper downwind entry and felt it unsafe to be lower on my visibility approach due to congestion in air traffic area. Bdr tower said ZNY approach had assigned me 2000'. This was incorrect. Bdr tower air traffic area is a safety hazard. They insist on having aircraft with 70 KTS difference in speed to blend together west/O any adjustments to normal flow of traffic.they have on more than 1 occasion cleared a small aircraft for a short approach in front of me only to cause me to go around. On the above narrative our company had to go around because the tower tried to get a small aircraft in between my landing and his. I realize we have an obligation to try and make the pattern at small fields work and I try. This NASA report really is serving 2 purposes: 1) to bring attention to the insufficient time for the handoff between ZNY approach and bdr tower. 2) the issue of safety in the air traffic area at bdr--we should have some standardization to the flow of inbound traffic into the field.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR ENTERED DOWNWIND ABOVE TRAFFIC PATTERNALT TO AVOID CONGESTION.

Narrative: THE OCCURRENCE RELATED BELOW OCCURRED ON ACR X, PHL BDR. THE LAST ASSIGNMENT FROM ZNY WAS 'DSND TO 3000'.' WE WERE AT 6000' AT THE TIME. THE CLRNC WAS 3000' INSTEAD OF THE NORMAL 2000' DUE TO OPP DIRECTION TFC AT 2500'. AT 8.8 MI OUT WE CALLED FIELD IN SIGHT. ZNY APCH CLRED US FOR THE VIS. I CALLED BDR TWR AT 5.6 OUT FOR A LEFT BASE. THE TWR REQUESTED WE ENTER A LEFT DOWNWIND. I RESPONDED ROGER HOWEVER WE WERE ON A LEFT BASE AT THAT TIME AND WOULD LIKE TO LAND FROM THAT POS. THE TWR IGNORED THE REQUEST AND AGAIN INSTRUCTED US TO ENTER A LEFT DOWNWIND. I TURNED TO THE LEFT TO ALLOW ROOM FOR THE PROPER DOWNWIND ENTRY AND ARRESTED MY DSCNT AT 3000' DUE TO THE CONGESTION IN THE ATA. JUST PRIOR TO TURNING INBND ON 45 DEGS, THE TWR ASKED MY ALT, I RESPONDED 3000'. THEY ASKED, 'WHY?' I RESPONDED THAT I WAS MANEUVERING FOR A PROPER DOWNWIND ENTRY AND FELT IT UNSAFE TO BE LOWER ON MY VIS APCH DUE TO CONGESTION IN ATA. BDR TWR SAID ZNY APCH HAD ASSIGNED ME 2000'. THIS WAS INCORRECT. BDR TWR ATA IS A SAFETY HAZARD. THEY INSIST ON HAVING ACFT WITH 70 KTS DIFFERENCE IN SPD TO BLEND TOGETHER W/O ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO NORMAL FLOW OF TFC.THEY HAVE ON MORE THAN 1 OCCASION CLRED A SMA FOR A SHORT APCH IN FRONT OF ME ONLY TO CAUSE ME TO GO AROUND. ON THE ABOVE NARRATIVE OUR COMPANY HAD TO GO AROUND BECAUSE THE TWR TRIED TO GET A SMA IN BTWN MY LNDG AND HIS. I REALIZE WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TRY AND MAKE THE PATTERN AT SMALL FIELDS WORK AND I TRY. THIS NASA RPT REALLY IS SERVING 2 PURPOSES: 1) TO BRING ATTN TO THE INSUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE HDOF BTWN ZNY APCH AND BDR TWR. 2) THE ISSUE OF SAFETY IN THE ATA AT BDR--WE SHOULD HAVE SOME STANDARDIZATION TO THE FLOW OF INBND TFC INTO THE FIELD.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.