Narrative:

On a 1 mi final to runway 2 at ksaf, I was asked by tower if it would be inconvenient to land instead on runway 33. This request was precipitated by the fact that additional traffic had just requested to practice touch and go's on runway 2. I agreed to the request, however, the clearance not only included my landing on runway 33, but also requested that I hold short of runway 2. I was somewhat high at the time, and unfortunately was unfamiliar with the airport, so I did not understand just how limited the runway would be in order to comply with this request. Sharp turns at low altitude were required to repos myself to runway 33, and as I turned onto a very short final, I saw for the first time that the runway short of runway 2, was very limited. I should have immediately told the tower that I would be unable to land and also hold short as requested, however, that's hindsight. In reality I attempted the landing, only to float for what seemed forever. Once on the ground, I immediately applied maximum braking, but at that moment the aircraft swerved left, and I was temporarily out of control, and very close to a ground loop. I was fortunate to regain control, and to stop just short of runway 2 as requested, but I had come very close to leaving the runway out of control. The loss of control probably occurred because in my haste to land, I was carrying too much speed. When I attempted to apply the brakes, I relaxed the crosswind control which was required for this runway and applied the brakes unevenly. This caused the temporary loss of control. Obviously this was pilot error, and perhaps this will be a good lesson to me that if I see a situation developing, I should not hesitate to tell the tower that I am unable to comply. However, there are several contributing factors that have caused me to send this report. First, why was I so high on approach? This has been a constant problem on almost every visit to this airport. I generally make my flight IFR, and almost without exception, ATC delays the descent until it is rushed at best, and impossible at times to reach the airport at pattern altitude. VFR dscnts are not allowed while on an IFR flight plan, and with the numerous training flts at this airport, ATC seems to have a difficult time getting traffic down in a timely fashion. Seeing this was about to happen to me again, I canceled IFR and proceeded VFR to the airport, however, because of radio traffic, I was a little late in canceling, and hence the higher than normal approach. However, this approach would not have been a problem with the full runway length available to me, it only became a problem when requested to use only partial runway length. Additionally, I question the judgement of the tower controller asking me to repos to another runway, when I had been cleared to land, and was on a 1 mi final. If this had been an emergency that would have been one thing, but it was just another aircraft practicing in the pattern. Much better would have been to ask the other aircraft to land on runway 33. As it was, I was asked to execute sharp turns at low altitude and slow airspeed to effect the maneuver, and that is poor practice. Further, when I was asked if I would be willing to land on runway 33, no mention was made that I would also be asked to hold short of runway 2. I might have hesitated to accept the request if I had understood the entire request. The controller who is familiar with his airport should have seen me high, and understood that holding short would be a problem, in my opinion. This incident would have been my fault, however, I believe the actions of the tower showed poor judgement, and contributing is the attitude of ATC that almost without exception, delays dscnts coming from the east until a sane rate of descent is difficult. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter repeated the fact that every time he flies into saf he gets a slam dunk approach. Coming from the east, he is held at 13000 ft as the MEA on V-62 is 10000. He has tried requesting a VMC descent and was told it wasn't authority/authorized. He has to cancel IFR to get down in time and is still high. He has never been given a 'cleared for the approach' but receives a 'cleared for the visual, usually when about 5-6 mi from the VORTAC. He flies a turbo 210. When questioned, he stated that, 'no, he hasn't talked with the facility chief and should have. He thought that the reason the runway change was requested was that a 'warbird,' an old grumman tbf, was on downwind and the controller wished to give that aircraft priority for runway 33.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LOSS OF ACFT CTLR DURING LNDG PROC ROLLOUT. MULTIPLE RWY OP XING INTERSECTING RWYS. CLRNC LNDG.

Narrative: ON A 1 MI FINAL TO RWY 2 AT KSAF, I WAS ASKED BY TWR IF IT WOULD BE INCONVENIENT TO LAND INSTEAD ON RWY 33. THIS REQUEST WAS PRECIPITATED BY THE FACT THAT ADDITIONAL TFC HAD JUST REQUESTED TO PRACTICE TOUCH AND GO'S ON RWY 2. I AGREED TO THE REQUEST, HOWEVER, THE CLRNC NOT ONLY INCLUDED MY LNDG ON RWY 33, BUT ALSO REQUESTED THAT I HOLD SHORT OF RWY 2. I WAS SOMEWHAT HIGH AT THE TIME, AND UNFORTUNATELY WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT, SO I DID NOT UNDERSTAND JUST HOW LIMITED THE RWY WOULD BE IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUEST. SHARP TURNS AT LOW ALT WERE REQUIRED TO REPOS MYSELF TO RWY 33, AND AS I TURNED ONTO A VERY SHORT FINAL, I SAW FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THE RWY SHORT OF RWY 2, WAS VERY LIMITED. I SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY TOLD THE TWR THAT I WOULD BE UNABLE TO LAND AND ALSO HOLD SHORT AS REQUESTED, HOWEVER, THAT'S HINDSIGHT. IN REALITY I ATTEMPTED THE LNDG, ONLY TO FLOAT FOR WHAT SEEMED FOREVER. ONCE ON THE GND, I IMMEDIATELY APPLIED MAX BRAKING, BUT AT THAT MOMENT THE ACFT SWERVED L, AND I WAS TEMPORARILY OUT OF CTL, AND VERY CLOSE TO A GND LOOP. I WAS FORTUNATE TO REGAIN CTL, AND TO STOP JUST SHORT OF RWY 2 AS REQUESTED, BUT I HAD COME VERY CLOSE TO LEAVING THE RWY OUT OF CTL. THE LOSS OF CTL PROBABLY OCCURRED BECAUSE IN MY HASTE TO LAND, I WAS CARRYING TOO MUCH SPD. WHEN I ATTEMPTED TO APPLY THE BRAKES, I RELAXED THE XWIND CTL WHICH WAS REQUIRED FOR THIS RWY AND APPLIED THE BRAKES UNEVENLY. THIS CAUSED THE TEMPORARY LOSS OF CTL. OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS PLT ERROR, AND PERHAPS THIS WILL BE A GOOD LESSON TO ME THAT IF I SEE A SIT DEVELOPING, I SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO TELL THE TWR THAT I AM UNABLE TO COMPLY. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SEVERAL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS THAT HAVE CAUSED ME TO SEND THIS RPT. FIRST, WHY WAS I SO HIGH ON APCH? THIS HAS BEEN A CONSTANT PROB ON ALMOST EVERY VISIT TO THIS ARPT. I GENERALLY MAKE MY FLT IFR, AND ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ATC DELAYS THE DSCNT UNTIL IT IS RUSHED AT BEST, AND IMPOSSIBLE AT TIMES TO REACH THE ARPT AT PATTERN ALT. VFR DSCNTS ARE NOT ALLOWED WHILE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN, AND WITH THE NUMEROUS TRAINING FLTS AT THIS ARPT, ATC SEEMS TO HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME GETTING TFC DOWN IN A TIMELY FASHION. SEEING THIS WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN TO ME AGAIN, I CANCELED IFR AND PROCEEDED VFR TO THE ARPT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF RADIO TFC, I WAS A LITTLE LATE IN CANCELING, AND HENCE THE HIGHER THAN NORMAL APCH. HOWEVER, THIS APCH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROB WITH THE FULL RWY LENGTH AVAILABLE TO ME, IT ONLY BECAME A PROB WHEN REQUESTED TO USE ONLY PARTIAL RWY LENGTH. ADDITIONALLY, I QUESTION THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TWR CTLR ASKING ME TO REPOS TO ANOTHER RWY, WHEN I HAD BEEN CLRED TO LAND, AND WAS ON A 1 MI FINAL. IF THIS HAD BEEN AN EMER THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE THING, BUT IT WAS JUST ANOTHER ACFT PRACTICING IN THE PATTERN. MUCH BETTER WOULD HAVE BEEN TO ASK THE OTHER ACFT TO LAND ON RWY 33. AS IT WAS, I WAS ASKED TO EXECUTE SHARP TURNS AT LOW ALT AND SLOW AIRSPD TO EFFECT THE MANEUVER, AND THAT IS POOR PRACTICE. FURTHER, WHEN I WAS ASKED IF I WOULD BE WILLING TO LAND ON RWY 33, NO MENTION WAS MADE THAT I WOULD ALSO BE ASKED TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 2. I MIGHT HAVE HESITATED TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST IF I HAD UNDERSTOOD THE ENTIRE REQUEST. THE CTLR WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH HIS ARPT SHOULD HAVE SEEN ME HIGH, AND UNDERSTOOD THAT HOLDING SHORT WOULD BE A PROB, IN MY OPINION. THIS INCIDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY FAULT, HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THE ACTIONS OF THE TWR SHOWED POOR JUDGEMENT, AND CONTRIBUTING IS THE ATTITUDE OF ATC THAT ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION, DELAYS DSCNTS COMING FROM THE E UNTIL A SANE RATE OF DSCNT IS DIFFICULT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR REPEATED THE FACT THAT EVERY TIME HE FLIES INTO SAF HE GETS A SLAM DUNK APCH. COMING FROM THE E, HE IS HELD AT 13000 FT AS THE MEA ON V-62 IS 10000. HE HAS TRIED REQUESTING A VMC DSCNT AND WAS TOLD IT WASN'T AUTH. HE HAS TO CANCEL IFR TO GET DOWN IN TIME AND IS STILL HIGH. HE HAS NEVER BEEN GIVEN A 'CLRED FOR THE APCH' BUT RECEIVES A 'CLRED FOR THE VISUAL, USUALLY WHEN ABOUT 5-6 MI FROM THE VORTAC. HE FLIES A TURBO 210. WHEN QUESTIONED, HE STATED THAT, 'NO, HE HASN'T TALKED WITH THE FACILITY CHIEF AND SHOULD HAVE. HE THOUGHT THAT THE REASON THE RWY CHANGE WAS REQUESTED WAS THAT A 'WARBIRD,' AN OLD GRUMMAN TBF, WAS ON DOWNWIND AND THE CTLR WISHED TO GIVE THAT ACFT PRIORITY FOR RWY 33.

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.