Narrative:

T-38 was inbound to grand junction from the south at 13000 ft MSL. The approach controller cleared T-38 for a visual approach to runway 29 and instructed the pilot to contact the tower on a 5 mi left base. The approach controller did not coordinate this aircraft with me, nor did he ask me for approval for the pilot to contact me inside my airspace or at the edge of my airspace. This is the fifth NASA report I have filed concerning this type of situation. There was a twin cessna on a right base for runway 29. A t- 38 on a visual approach is traveling at approximately 240 mph. It only takes about 1 min for that T-38 to reach the final approach course for the runway, which leaves barely enough time for sequencing the pilot behind the twin cessna. The controller's actions in this case were not in accordance with FAA ATC manual 7110.65J paragraph 2-1-15A 'transfer control of an aircraft in accordance with the following conditions: at a prescribed or coordinated location, time, fix, or altitude,' and paragraph 2-1-17A 'transfer radio communications before an aircraft enters the receiving controller's area of jurisdiction, unless otherwise coordinated or specified by a LOA or a facility directive.' I have reason to believe the pilot was instructed to contact me on a left base in an attempt to create a conflict with the twin cessna. The approach controller did not have any other aircraft under his control so there was absolutely no reason to retain control and communication on this aircraft until the aircraft reached a 5 mi left base, especially when the local controller has other aircraft in class D airspace and the high performance (speed) of the T-38. There were 2 other individuals to this incident, however, I doubt that they would admit it was intentional, because they were just as entertained as the controller responsible for the situation, and because their relationship is too cohesive, they would do anything, or say anything to protect one another. This is the fifth NASA report that I have filed on this type of incident. When will the FAA prevent this from occurring again? When a fatal accident occurs? I also believe this was intentional because this individual at one time stated 'I heard you are trying to sabotage our efforts to get radar, I want you to know that if you sabotage our efforts to get radar we will hold it against you and you may not be working here anymore.' needless to say, I do not feel very comfortable working with this person. His persona is very threatening and hostile.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON COMPLIANCE WITH INTERFAC COORD PROCS. NON RADAR APCH CTL FACILITY.

Narrative: T-38 WAS INBOUND TO GRAND JUNCTION FROM THE S AT 13000 FT MSL. THE APCH CTLR CLRED T-38 FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 29 AND INSTRUCTED THE PLT TO CONTACT THE TWR ON A 5 MI L BASE. THE APCH CTLR DID NOT COORDINATE THIS ACFT WITH ME, NOR DID HE ASK ME FOR APPROVAL FOR THE PLT TO CONTACT ME INSIDE MY AIRSPACE OR AT THE EDGE OF MY AIRSPACE. THIS IS THE FIFTH NASA RPT I HAVE FILED CONCERNING THIS TYPE OF SIT. THERE WAS A TWIN CESSNA ON A R BASE FOR RWY 29. A T- 38 ON A VISUAL APCH IS TRAVELING AT APPROX 240 MPH. IT ONLY TAKES ABOUT 1 MIN FOR THAT T-38 TO REACH THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR THE RWY, WHICH LEAVES BARELY ENOUGH TIME FOR SEQUENCING THE PLT BEHIND THE TWIN CESSNA. THE CTLR'S ACTIONS IN THIS CASE WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAA ATC MANUAL 7110.65J PARAGRAPH 2-1-15A 'TRANSFER CTL OF AN ACFT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: AT A PRESCRIBED OR COORDINATED LOCATION, TIME, FIX, OR ALT,' AND PARAGRAPH 2-1-17A 'TRANSFER RADIO COMS BEFORE AN ACFT ENTERS THE RECEIVING CTLR'S AREA OF JURISDICTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE COORDINATED OR SPECIFIED BY A LOA OR A FACILITY DIRECTIVE.' I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THE PLT WAS INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT ME ON A L BASE IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CONFLICT WITH THE TWIN CESSNA. THE APCH CTLR DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER ACFT UNDER HIS CTL SO THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO RETAIN CTL AND COM ON THIS ACFT UNTIL THE ACFT REACHED A 5 MI L BASE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LCL CTLR HAS OTHER ACFT IN CLASS D AIRSPACE AND THE HIGH PERFORMANCE (SPD) OF THE T-38. THERE WERE 2 OTHER INDIVIDUALS TO THIS INCIDENT, HOWEVER, I DOUBT THAT THEY WOULD ADMIT IT WAS INTENTIONAL, BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST AS ENTERTAINED AS THE CTLR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SIT, AND BECAUSE THEIR RELATIONSHIP IS TOO COHESIVE, THEY WOULD DO ANYTHING, OR SAY ANYTHING TO PROTECT ONE ANOTHER. THIS IS THE FIFTH NASA RPT THAT I HAVE FILED ON THIS TYPE OF INCIDENT. WHEN WILL THE FAA PREVENT THIS FROM OCCURRING AGAIN? WHEN A FATAL ACCIDENT OCCURS? I ALSO BELIEVE THIS WAS INTENTIONAL BECAUSE THIS INDIVIDUAL AT ONE TIME STATED 'I HEARD YOU ARE TRYING TO SABOTAGE OUR EFFORTS TO GET RADAR, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IF YOU SABOTAGE OUR EFFORTS TO GET RADAR WE WILL HOLD IT AGAINST YOU AND YOU MAY NOT BE WORKING HERE ANYMORE.' NEEDLESS TO SAY, I DO NOT FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE WORKING WITH THIS PERSON. HIS PERSONA IS VERY THREATENING AND HOSTILE.

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.