Narrative:

Attempts to contact tower 10 DME out resulted in transmission breaking up but that runway 36 was in use. I (the pilot) also heard an small transport approaching from the south. I was able to report 'on a 45', at and over fallen leaf lake and told, what I thought, to fly a runway heading for sequencing. Flying over the runway at pattern altitude the tower called and asked my intentions. They also advised a third airplane, an small aircraft, to circle south. The small transport I spotted immediately below me on 2 mi final. The small aircraft appeared 300' above on a final. I turned right instead of left for traffic avoidance. Tower cleared me to land by saying follow the small transport #2 for landing. I landed normally, and was told by the FBO to call the tower. Tower personnel informed me that I was to have crossed midfield and than entered right downwind. I informed them that there was little time to do this. Also, that instructions for landing had been unclr and issued at poor intervals, that I was sorry for the separation incident (300') and informed I had both aircraft in sight. Lake tahoe airport lies in a fairly narrow valley with steep mountainous terrain on sides. In addition, smaller hills lie within the traffic pattern and off to the centerline of runway 36. The tower does not have an ATIS nor remote transmitter situated high enough to communication with aircraft approaching from western quadrants. Consequently, an aircraft finds itself with poor communication. A transmitter better positioned would greatly help tower communications. I now realize that my expectations of tower instruction can color interpretation. Rapid fire issuing of instructions (caused by three aircraft converging at the same time) condensed by terrain features can make for highly stressed communications, an atmosphere conducive for mistakes. My own action appeared to be one of inaction, and waiting for additional tower instructions or clarifications that never came. They didn't have time. Perhaps my suggestion of moving transmitter site and adding ATIS information would smooth the flow and ease the pattern entry already made difficult by terrain. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. The communication problem with tvl tower is so commonly known it is talked about at every GA pilot gathering. It would seem with the large amount of traffic into tvl would justify a remote transmitter at high enough altitude to give better transmission and reception to light aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMT TWIN HAD DIFFICULTY INTERPRETING HIS APCH AND LNDG CLRNC FROM TWR. FLEW OVER ARPT AND HAD CONFLICT WITH AN SMA.

Narrative: ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT TWR 10 DME OUT RESULTED IN XMISSION BREAKING UP BUT THAT RWY 36 WAS IN USE. I (THE PLT) ALSO HEARD AN SMT APCHING FROM THE S. I WAS ABLE TO RPT 'ON A 45', AT AND OVER FALLEN LEAF LAKE AND TOLD, WHAT I THOUGHT, TO FLY A RWY HDG FOR SEQUENCING. FLYING OVER THE RWY AT PATTERN ALT THE TWR CALLED AND ASKED MY INTENTIONS. THEY ALSO ADVISED A THIRD AIRPLANE, AN SMA, TO CIRCLE S. THE SMT I SPOTTED IMMEDIATELY BELOW ME ON 2 MI FINAL. THE SMA APPEARED 300' ABOVE ON A FINAL. I TURNED R INSTEAD OF L FOR TFC AVOIDANCE. TWR CLRED ME TO LAND BY SAYING FOLLOW THE SMT #2 FOR LNDG. I LANDED NORMALLY, AND WAS TOLD BY THE FBO TO CALL THE TWR. TWR PERSONNEL INFORMED ME THAT I WAS TO HAVE CROSSED MIDFIELD AND THAN ENTERED R DOWNWIND. I INFORMED THEM THAT THERE WAS LITTLE TIME TO DO THIS. ALSO, THAT INSTRUCTIONS FOR LNDG HAD BEEN UNCLR AND ISSUED AT POOR INTERVALS, THAT I WAS SORRY FOR THE SEPARATION INCIDENT (300') AND INFORMED I HAD BOTH ACFT IN SIGHT. LAKE TAHOE ARPT LIES IN A FAIRLY NARROW VALLEY WITH STEEP MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN ON SIDES. IN ADDITION, SMALLER HILLS LIE WITHIN THE TFC PATTERN AND OFF TO THE CTRLINE OF RWY 36. THE TWR DOES NOT HAVE AN ATIS NOR REMOTE TRANSMITTER SITUATED HIGH ENOUGH TO COM WITH ACFT APCHING FROM WESTERN QUADRANTS. CONSEQUENTLY, AN ACFT FINDS ITSELF WITH POOR COM. A TRANSMITTER BETTER POSITIONED WOULD GREATLY HELP TWR COMS. I NOW REALIZE THAT MY EXPECTATIONS OF TWR INSTRUCTION CAN COLOR INTERPRETATION. RAPID FIRE ISSUING OF INSTRUCTIONS (CAUSED BY THREE ACFT CONVERGING AT THE SAME TIME) CONDENSED BY TERRAIN FEATURES CAN MAKE FOR HIGHLY STRESSED COMS, AN ATMOSPHERE CONDUCIVE FOR MISTAKES. MY OWN ACTION APPEARED TO BE ONE OF INACTION, AND WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL TWR INSTRUCTIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS THAT NEVER CAME. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TIME. PERHAPS MY SUGGESTION OF MOVING TRANSMITTER SITE AND ADDING ATIS INFO WOULD SMOOTH THE FLOW AND EASE THE PATTERN ENTRY ALREADY MADE DIFFICULT BY TERRAIN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. THE COM PROB WITH TVL TWR IS SO COMMONLY KNOWN IT IS TALKED ABOUT AT EVERY GA PLT GATHERING. IT WOULD SEEM WITH THE LARGE AMOUNT OF TFC INTO TVL WOULD JUSTIFY A REMOTE TRANSMITTER AT HIGH ENOUGH ALT TO GIVE BETTER XMISSION AND RECEPTION TO LIGHT ACFT.

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.