Commuter light transport flight crew complaint about ATCT local controller handling at sju.

Attributes
ACN	144274
Time
Date	199005
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sju
State Reference	PR
Altitude	msl bound lower : 800 msl bound upper : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : sju
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport
Flight Phase	descent other other
Route In Use	approach : visual enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 4000
ASRS Report	144274
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

5/90 arriving into sju, I was cleared to what they call an olympic approach. It is a combination base/final leg to runway 10, semi-parallel to final to runway 8. I was in a 2 mi wide downwind leg when the switched me to tower frequency. When I called to check in, they told me I was going to follow an small aircraft that was 8 mi west of the airport. In order to expedite my arrival into sju, I requested a short approach and that way I avoided to extend the downwind. To my request, ATC replied that I proceed direct to the approach end of runway 10. Then he cleared the small aircraft the same way and talked back to me to say he wanted me to do left 360 degree turn to follow the small aircraft. This time I was already 1 mi base and 800', already in landing confign with a heading of 035 degrees. I followed ATC instructions but was really hard and unsafe, and also totally unnecessary. This is a clear example of mishandling of a sequence of 2 different and incompatible aircraft. I was operating a 16500# turboprop about 70 KTS faster than the light/slow single engine private aircraft. By the time I would have been parked in the ramp, the small aircraft would have been still on final, but ATC messed up and I ended up following some other traffic behind the small aircraft. I really think this mishandling is unsafe and is totally ATC's fault.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER LTT FLT CREW COMPLAINT ABOUT ATCT LCL CTLR HANDLING AT SJU.

Narrative: 5/90 ARRIVING INTO SJU, I WAS CLRED TO WHAT THEY CALL AN OLYMPIC APCH. IT IS A COMBINATION BASE/FINAL LEG TO RWY 10, SEMI-PARALLEL TO FINAL TO RWY 8. I WAS IN A 2 MI WIDE DOWNWIND LEG WHEN THE SWITCHED ME TO TWR FREQ. WHEN I CALLED TO CHK IN, THEY TOLD ME I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW AN SMA THAT WAS 8 MI W OF THE ARPT. IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE MY ARR INTO SJU, I REQUESTED A SHORT APCH AND THAT WAY I AVOIDED TO EXTEND THE DOWNWIND. TO MY REQUEST, ATC REPLIED THAT I PROCEED DIRECT TO THE APCH END OF RWY 10. THEN HE CLRED THE SMA THE SAME WAY AND TALKED BACK TO ME TO SAY HE WANTED ME TO DO LEFT 360 DEG TURN TO FOLLOW THE SMA. THIS TIME I WAS ALREADY 1 MI BASE AND 800', ALREADY IN LNDG CONFIGN WITH A HDG OF 035 DEGS. I FOLLOWED ATC INSTRUCTIONS BUT WAS REALLY HARD AND UNSAFE, AND ALSO TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF MISHANDLING OF A SEQUENCE OF 2 DIFFERENT AND INCOMPATIBLE ACFT. I WAS OPERATING A 16500# TURBOPROP ABOUT 70 KTS FASTER THAN THE LIGHT/SLOW SINGLE ENG PVT ACFT. BY THE TIME I WOULD HAVE BEEN PARKED IN THE RAMP, THE SMA WOULD HAVE BEEN STILL ON FINAL, BUT ATC MESSED UP AND I ENDED UP FOLLOWING SOME OTHER TFC BEHIND THE SMA. I REALLY THINK THIS MISHANDLING IS UNSAFE AND IS TOTALLY ATC'S FAULT.

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.