Narrative:

On 5/fri/89 my wife, who is also a private pilot, and I were returning to sjc from 3o8. About 35 mi southeast of sjc we listened to the ATIS and began to monitor bay approach on 120.1. I called bay abeam Q99 at approximately xx PDT. When bay responded 'go ahead,' I gave our position and requested landing at sjc with information november. We were told to standby for a squawk. Having established 2-WAY radio contact, I continued inbound awaiting a transponder code. The controller was extremely busy and seemed to be working at least one other frequency; several other VFR aircraft called in and were told to standby and call back in 3 mins. I did not receive a transponder assignment nor any traffic advisories, even though several other aircraft passed nearby. At 7 DME, I called again requesting a frequency change to the tower; the controller responded, 'frequency change approved, contact tower on 120.7.' when I called the tower, I was told to contact bay approach and remain clear of the arsa. I responded that I had just been handed off from bay and I was inbound for landing. I was then given a squawk, told to identify, and shortly thereafter, cleared to land. I did not feel endangered by this incident, as sjc is my home base and I am accustomed to the traffic vol normally found here. However, while I was in contact with approach control, the controller had no time to handle another VFR aircraft. I feel that with the arsa now in effect, there need to be sufficient controllers to provide service to both the IFR and VFR traffic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA GIVEN INEPT AND CONTRADICTORY ATC SERVICE REGARDING ARSA ENTRY AND LNDG.

Narrative: ON 5/FRI/89 MY WIFE, WHO IS ALSO A PVT PLT, AND I WERE RETURNING TO SJC FROM 3O8. ABOUT 35 MI SE OF SJC WE LISTENED TO THE ATIS AND BEGAN TO MONITOR BAY APCH ON 120.1. I CALLED BAY ABEAM Q99 AT APPROX XX PDT. WHEN BAY RESPONDED 'GO AHEAD,' I GAVE OUR POS AND REQUESTED LNDG AT SJC WITH INFO NOVEMBER. WE WERE TOLD TO STANDBY FOR A SQUAWK. HAVING ESTABLISHED 2-WAY RADIO CONTACT, I CONTINUED INBND AWAITING A XPONDER CODE. THE CTLR WAS EXTREMELY BUSY AND SEEMED TO BE WORKING AT LEAST ONE OTHER FREQ; SEVERAL OTHER VFR ACFT CALLED IN AND WERE TOLD TO STANDBY AND CALL BACK IN 3 MINS. I DID NOT RECEIVE A XPONDER ASSIGNMENT NOR ANY TFC ADVISORIES, EVEN THOUGH SEVERAL OTHER ACFT PASSED NEARBY. AT 7 DME, I CALLED AGAIN REQUESTING A FREQ CHANGE TO THE TWR; THE CTLR RESPONDED, 'FREQ CHANGE APPROVED, CONTACT TWR ON 120.7.' WHEN I CALLED THE TWR, I WAS TOLD TO CONTACT BAY APCH AND REMAIN CLR OF THE ARSA. I RESPONDED THAT I HAD JUST BEEN HANDED OFF FROM BAY AND I WAS INBND FOR LNDG. I WAS THEN GIVEN A SQUAWK, TOLD TO IDENT, AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER, CLRED TO LAND. I DID NOT FEEL ENDANGERED BY THIS INCIDENT, AS SJC IS MY HOME BASE AND I AM ACCUSTOMED TO THE TFC VOL NORMALLY FOUND HERE. HOWEVER, WHILE I WAS IN CONTACT WITH APCH CTL, THE CTLR HAD NO TIME TO HANDLE ANOTHER VFR ACFT. I FEEL THAT WITH THE ARSA NOW IN EFFECT, THERE NEED TO BE SUFFICIENT CTLRS TO PROVIDE SVC TO BOTH THE IFR AND VFR TFC.

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.