Narrative:

I was flying an small aircraft X and had just departed 1n9 (queen city municipal) which is located under the outer lateral limits of the abe (allentown international) arsa. I was several hundred feet up and made my initial call up to allentown approach. When the controller acknowledged me, I informed him I was just off queen city with the ATIS information and that my intention was to go over to allentown for one touch-and-go. The controller acknowledged me, gave me a transponder code and began vectoring for runway 31, the visibility runway in use. I was eventually vectored for a long final to runway 31 and told to switch to tower. I made my call up to the tower and was acknowledged by the controller and told 'clear to land 31'. When I was approximately 3 mi from runway 31, the controller asked if I could switch to runway 32. I believe this was because of an large transport on a taxiway that had to cross runway 31 to get to runway 6. I informed the controller it would be no problem and was cleared to land runway 32. I therefore sidestepped and aligned myself with runway 32. I made an uneventful landing, cleaned up the plane and departed, completing my one touch-and-go as I told approach was my intention. When I was off of runway 32, I called tower and informed them I was off of runway 32. The controller's voice became very stern; she was surprised that I was in the air off of runway 32. I informed her that I had informed approach that one touch-and-go was my intention. She remained stern, asking where I was departing to. I told her back to queen city and she gave me departure instructions. When I informed her I had queen city in sight, she handed me off. At the time, I believed the tower controller was surprised and upset about the touch-and-go because the approach controller had not passed along my intentions. It was my understanding, belief and past experience that the reason approach control inquired what your intentions are is so they know what to do with you and to make the controllers you talk with in the future aware of what you are doing so you don't have unnecessary air time repeating requests. This has always been my experience (although my experience is not extensive). I was not instructed during my primary training nor recall reading that you must state to each controller when being handed from one to another you intent, unless requested. I told an instrument the story, but more than that discussed the relationship of approach and tower controllers and learned that, workload permitting, approach may pass your full intentions on to tower but not to depend upon that, that upon contact with tower, you should state your intentions or make your requests and I will do so in the future.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLEARED TO LAND BY ABE TWR, SMA PLT EXECUTES TOUCH AND GO.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING AN SMA X AND HAD JUST DEPARTED 1N9 (QUEEN CITY MUNICIPAL) WHICH IS LOCATED UNDER THE OUTER LATERAL LIMITS OF THE ABE (ALLENTOWN INTL) ARSA. I WAS SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET UP AND MADE MY INITIAL CALL UP TO ALLENTOWN APCH. WHEN THE CTLR ACKNOWLEDGED ME, I INFORMED HIM I WAS JUST OFF QUEEN CITY WITH THE ATIS INFO AND THAT MY INTENTION WAS TO GO OVER TO ALLENTOWN FOR ONE TOUCH-AND-GO. THE CTLR ACKNOWLEDGED ME, GAVE ME A TRANSPONDER CODE AND BEGAN VECTORING FOR RWY 31, THE VIS RWY IN USE. I WAS EVENTUALLY VECTORED FOR A LONG FINAL TO RWY 31 AND TOLD TO SWITCH TO TWR. I MADE MY CALL UP TO THE TWR AND WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CTLR AND TOLD 'CLR TO LAND 31'. WHEN I WAS APPROX 3 MI FROM RWY 31, THE CTLR ASKED IF I COULD SWITCH TO RWY 32. I BELIEVE THIS WAS BECAUSE OF AN LGT ON A TXWY THAT HAD TO CROSS RWY 31 TO GET TO RWY 6. I INFORMED THE CTLR IT WOULD BE NO PROB AND WAS CLRED TO LAND RWY 32. I THEREFORE SIDESTEPPED AND ALIGNED MYSELF WITH RWY 32. I MADE AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG, CLEANED UP THE PLANE AND DEPARTED, COMPLETING MY ONE TOUCH-AND-GO AS I TOLD APCH WAS MY INTENTION. WHEN I WAS OFF OF RWY 32, I CALLED TWR AND INFORMED THEM I WAS OFF OF RWY 32. THE CTLR'S VOICE BECAME VERY STERN; SHE WAS SURPRISED THAT I WAS IN THE AIR OFF OF RWY 32. I INFORMED HER THAT I HAD INFORMED APCH THAT ONE TOUCH-AND-GO WAS MY INTENTION. SHE REMAINED STERN, ASKING WHERE I WAS DEPARTING TO. I TOLD HER BACK TO QUEEN CITY AND SHE GAVE ME DEP INSTRUCTIONS. WHEN I INFORMED HER I HAD QUEEN CITY IN SIGHT, SHE HANDED ME OFF. AT THE TIME, I BELIEVED THE TWR CTLR WAS SURPRISED AND UPSET ABOUT THE TOUCH-AND-GO BECAUSE THE APCH CTLR HAD NOT PASSED ALONG MY INTENTIONS. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, BELIEF AND PAST EXPERIENCE THAT THE REASON APCH CTL INQUIRED WHAT YOUR INTENTIONS ARE IS SO THEY KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH YOU AND TO MAKE THE CTLRS YOU TALK WITH IN THE FUTURE AWARE OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING SO YOU DON'T HAVE UNNECESSARY AIR TIME REPEATING REQUESTS. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE (ALTHOUGH MY EXPERIENCE IS NOT EXTENSIVE). I WAS NOT INSTRUCTED DURING MY PRIMARY TRNING NOR RECALL READING THAT YOU MUST STATE TO EACH CTLR WHEN BEING HANDED FROM ONE TO ANOTHER YOU INTENT, UNLESS REQUESTED. I TOLD AN INSTR THE STORY, BUT MORE THAN THAT DISCUSSED THE RELATIONSHIP OF APCH AND TWR CTLRS AND LEARNED THAT, WORKLOAD PERMITTING, APCH MAY PASS YOUR FULL INTENTIONS ON TO TWR BUT NOT TO DEPEND UPON THAT, THAT UPON CONTACT WITH TWR, YOU SHOULD STATE YOUR INTENTIONS OR MAKE YOUR REQUESTS AND I WILL DO SO IN THE FUTURE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.