Student pilot complaint regarding the lack of tower radar equipment during entry and operation in th...

Attributes
ACN	226113
Time
Date	199211
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lvk
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3000 msl bound upper : 3000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : lvk
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear
Flight Phase	descent other
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : student
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 20 flight time total : 134 flight time type : 120
ASRS Report	226113
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : non radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

My purpose in writing this form is to bring up an issue that I believe many pilots and flight instructors take for granted. I recently learned that the livermore control tower does not have radar service. In the past, I had assumed that it did. For some strange student pilot thought pattern, I associated 'controled airports' with a controller and a radar scope. (Not a controller and a set of binoculars). Perhaps, I had been 'spoiled' by hayward's control tower with a radar. Anyway, I feel I'm not the only one to have made that kind of assumption. Also, even though it is a pilot's responsibility to 'see and avoid' in all visual conditions -- most of us can admit to a certain amount of complacency when operating in a radar environment. In my opinion, if that information had been given to me prior to flying there (either in a NOTAM, bulletin, or by an instructor), I would have understood the tower's workload and been courteous of that. My level of awareness would have been increased. My level of communication and aircraft lighting would have been increased. With numerous aircraft in the air traffic area and 1 controller using binoculars -- my caution would have been greatly increased.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: STUDENT PLT COMPLAINT REGARDING THE LACK OF TWR RADAR EQUIP DURING ENTRY AND OP IN THE ATA.

Narrative: MY PURPOSE IN WRITING THIS FORM IS TO BRING UP AN ISSUE THAT I BELIEVE MANY PLTS AND FLT INSTRUCTORS TAKE FOR GRANTED. I RECENTLY LEARNED THAT THE LIVERMORE CTL TWR DOES NOT HAVE RADAR SVC. IN THE PAST, I HAD ASSUMED THAT IT DID. FOR SOME STRANGE STUDENT PLT THOUGHT PATTERN, I ASSOCIATED 'CTLED ARPTS' WITH A CTLR AND A RADAR SCOPE. (NOT A CTLR AND A SET OF BINOCULARS). PERHAPS, I HAD BEEN 'SPOILED' BY HAYWARD'S CTL TWR WITH A RADAR. ANYWAY, I FEEL I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE TO HAVE MADE THAT KIND OF ASSUMPTION. ALSO, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A PLT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO 'SEE AND AVOID' IN ALL VISUAL CONDITIONS -- MOST OF US CAN ADMIT TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COMPLACENCY WHEN OPERATING IN A RADAR ENVIRONMENT. IN MY OPINION, IF THAT INFO HAD BEEN GIVEN TO ME PRIOR TO FLYING THERE (EITHER IN A NOTAM, BULLETIN, OR BY AN INSTRUCTOR), I WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE TWR'S WORKLOAD AND BEEN COURTEOUS OF THAT. MY LEVEL OF AWARENESS WOULD HAVE BEEN INCREASED. MY LEVEL OF COM AND ACFT LIGHTING WOULD HAVE BEEN INCREASED. WITH NUMEROUS ACFT IN THE ATA AND 1 CTLR USING BINOCULARS -- MY CAUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATLY INCREASED.

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.

Student pilot complaint regarding the lack of tower radar equipment during entry and operation in the air traffic area.