Narrative:

Aircraft had been in shop for maintenance and was found to be ready for return to service and first flight. Mechanic's recommendation was to try to put an hour on it at or above 75% cruise power and return to check over. In order to maximize safety my intent was to remain within gliding distance of airport. To insure that the tower understood my intentions and requirements and that I understood theirs, I went up to the tower to discuss my concerns and see if they could approve a SVFR while staying within gliding distance. Instead of simply saying no or yes, the discussion revolved around me staying 'in the traffic pattern.' I felt it was fairly important to obtain at least 1 circuit of the pattern and better yet as many as possible before either going beyond gliding distance or picking up an IFR clearance and entering the clouds. I took off. Climbing briskly and through 800 ft, before beginning my turn for a l-hand pattern, I told the tower that the ceiling was at least 800 ft and that I was well below the clouds. He replied with 'cleared to land.' I took this to mean that given our previous conversation and my previously expressed desire to maintain cruise power for the engine that everything was going according to plan and that I could continue. I turned a long downwind high base and final and made a low approach down to about 200 ft flying the length of the runway before climbing out for a second circuit. It was at this point that the tower asked what I was doing and I said a low approach thinking he had understood that. As I recall he then said, 'remain in the pattern, cleared to land, full stop.' I continued downwind. Before turning base I decided to request he coordinate the SVFR request with manchester. As I turned final, he issued a new clearance to 'remain clear of clouds and fly northwest to leave the class D airspace.' was given a squawk code and frequency change approved, but no mention of being allowed to turn northeast towards manchester. Upon contacting manchester approach, I was given the SVFR. Tower cleared me to land and asked if I wanted a full stop. I replied negative, and asked for a low approach and continue in the pattern. I did a low approach and requested another which was approved. I requested SVFR to nashua, which was approved. Upon contacting nashua tower again, SVFR was confirmed and I was requested to report abeam the tower on the left downwind. I requested to extend the downwind around the water tower. This was approved. I then reported beginning my turn inbound and then approaching the water tower. Nashua finally responded again with a cleared to land. I landed and was requested to come up to the tower. There was no other traffic at ash. The total flight lasted less than 35 mins. The tower controller insisted that I had deliberately not complied with his instructions. With hindsight, I now see I should have requested 'cleared for the option' or an option approach or requested a low approach when I was first cleared to land. He indicated that while I was near the water tower, I had left class D airspace without a clearance and had re-entered without a clearance. I was in continuous radio contact with him giving position reports and had a clearance for the extended downwind around the water tower. It was particularly interesting that he felt I had entered the airspace without a clearance given that he cleared me to land twice during that approach and never mentioned any airspace violation or requested I remain clear of the class D. I apologized for any misunderstanding. He indicated he would turn the matter over to the FSDO. I believe that what really caused the perceived problem was the non federal tower's desire to restrict the use of SVFR beyond what the regulations allow and their unwillingness to clearly and in plain english communicate their desires preferring instead to create sits designed to trap pilots in inadvertent violations. This desire was confirmed independently by both an independent flight instructor who happened to be listening to the whole flight on his scanner and a chief flight instructor at a local FBO. One commented that he now does all of his option or circle to land instruction at another arptand the other mentioned feeling harassed by the tower. I might also add that the effort at mht seems to be to assist the pilot in safely accomplishing the flight while the effort at ash seems to be to restrict the pilot from making the flight at all. A complicating factor is the lack of radar display at ash. Ash ATC saw fit to send me to the northwest towards the mountains and reduced ceilings rather than allowing me to stay safely in the pattern or proceed directly to the northeast over lower terrain towards manchester.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PVT PLT RUNS INTO PROBS WITH PHRASEOLOGY AND PROC WITH A NON FEDERAL TWR CTLR. MARGINAL WX CONDITIONS AND FLT BRIEFED WITH TWR CTLR PRIOR TO FLT. AFTER THE FLT, CTLR THREATENED TO TURN PLT OVER FOR FSDO ACTION.

Narrative: ACFT HAD BEEN IN SHOP FOR MAINT AND WAS FOUND TO BE READY FOR RETURN TO SVC AND FIRST FLT. MECH'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO TRY TO PUT AN HR ON IT AT OR ABOVE 75% CRUISE PWR AND RETURN TO CHK OVER. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE SAFETY MY INTENT WAS TO REMAIN WITHIN GLIDING DISTANCE OF ARPT. TO INSURE THAT THE TWR UNDERSTOOD MY INTENTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS AND THAT I UNDERSTOOD THEIRS, I WENT UP TO THE TWR TO DISCUSS MY CONCERNS AND SEE IF THEY COULD APPROVE A SVFR WHILE STAYING WITHIN GLIDING DISTANCE. INSTEAD OF SIMPLY SAYING NO OR YES, THE DISCUSSION REVOLVED AROUND ME STAYING 'IN THE TFC PATTERN.' I FELT IT WAS FAIRLY IMPORTANT TO OBTAIN AT LEAST 1 CIRCUIT OF THE PATTERN AND BETTER YET AS MANY AS POSSIBLE BEFORE EITHER GOING BEYOND GLIDING DISTANCE OR PICKING UP AN IFR CLRNC AND ENTERING THE CLOUDS. I TOOK OFF. CLBING BRISKLY AND THROUGH 800 FT, BEFORE BEGINNING MY TURN FOR A L-HAND PATTERN, I TOLD THE TWR THAT THE CEILING WAS AT LEAST 800 FT AND THAT I WAS WELL BELOW THE CLOUDS. HE REPLIED WITH 'CLRED TO LAND.' I TOOK THIS TO MEAN THAT GIVEN OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATION AND MY PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED DESIRE TO MAINTAIN CRUISE PWR FOR THE ENG THAT EVERYTHING WAS GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN AND THAT I COULD CONTINUE. I TURNED A LONG DOWNWIND HIGH BASE AND FINAL AND MADE A LOW APCH DOWN TO ABOUT 200 FT FLYING THE LENGTH OF THE RWY BEFORE CLBING OUT FOR A SECOND CIRCUIT. IT WAS AT THIS POINT THAT THE TWR ASKED WHAT I WAS DOING AND I SAID A LOW APCH THINKING HE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT. AS I RECALL HE THEN SAID, 'REMAIN IN THE PATTERN, CLRED TO LAND, FULL STOP.' I CONTINUED DOWNWIND. BEFORE TURNING BASE I DECIDED TO REQUEST HE COORDINATE THE SVFR REQUEST WITH MANCHESTER. AS I TURNED FINAL, HE ISSUED A NEW CLRNC TO 'REMAIN CLR OF CLOUDS AND FLY NW TO LEAVE THE CLASS D AIRSPACE.' WAS GIVEN A SQUAWK CODE AND FREQ CHANGE APPROVED, BUT NO MENTION OF BEING ALLOWED TO TURN NE TOWARDS MANCHESTER. UPON CONTACTING MANCHESTER APCH, I WAS GIVEN THE SVFR. TWR CLRED ME TO LAND AND ASKED IF I WANTED A FULL STOP. I REPLIED NEGATIVE, AND ASKED FOR A LOW APCH AND CONTINUE IN THE PATTERN. I DID A LOW APCH AND REQUESTED ANOTHER WHICH WAS APPROVED. I REQUESTED SVFR TO NASHUA, WHICH WAS APPROVED. UPON CONTACTING NASHUA TWR AGAIN, SVFR WAS CONFIRMED AND I WAS REQUESTED TO RPT ABEAM THE TWR ON THE L DOWNWIND. I REQUESTED TO EXTEND THE DOWNWIND AROUND THE WATER TWR. THIS WAS APPROVED. I THEN RPTED BEGINNING MY TURN INBOUND AND THEN APCHING THE WATER TWR. NASHUA FINALLY RESPONDED AGAIN WITH A CLRED TO LAND. I LANDED AND WAS REQUESTED TO COME UP TO THE TWR. THERE WAS NO OTHER TFC AT ASH. THE TOTAL FLT LASTED LESS THAN 35 MINS. THE TWR CTLR INSISTED THAT I HAD DELIBERATELY NOT COMPLIED WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS. WITH HINDSIGHT, I NOW SEE I SHOULD HAVE REQUESTED 'CLRED FOR THE OPTION' OR AN OPTION APCH OR REQUESTED A LOW APCH WHEN I WAS FIRST CLRED TO LAND. HE INDICATED THAT WHILE I WAS NEAR THE WATER TWR, I HAD LEFT CLASS D AIRSPACE WITHOUT A CLRNC AND HAD RE-ENTERED WITHOUT A CLRNC. I WAS IN CONTINUOUS RADIO CONTACT WITH HIM GIVING POS RPTS AND HAD A CLRNC FOR THE EXTENDED DOWNWIND AROUND THE WATER TWR. IT WAS PARTICULARLY INTERESTING THAT HE FELT I HAD ENTERED THE AIRSPACE WITHOUT A CLRNC GIVEN THAT HE CLRED ME TO LAND TWICE DURING THAT APCH AND NEVER MENTIONED ANY AIRSPACE VIOLATION OR REQUESTED I REMAIN CLR OF THE CLASS D. I APOLOGIZED FOR ANY MISUNDERSTANDING. HE INDICATED HE WOULD TURN THE MATTER OVER TO THE FSDO. I BELIEVE THAT WHAT REALLY CAUSED THE PERCEIVED PROB WAS THE NON FEDERAL TWR'S DESIRE TO RESTRICT THE USE OF SVFR BEYOND WHAT THE REGS ALLOW AND THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO CLRLY AND IN PLAIN ENGLISH COMMUNICATE THEIR DESIRES PREFERRING INSTEAD TO CREATE SITS DESIGNED TO TRAP PLTS IN INADVERTENT VIOLATIONS. THIS DESIRE WAS CONFIRMED INDEPENDENTLY BY BOTH AN INDEPENDENT FLT INSTRUCTOR WHO HAPPENED TO BE LISTENING TO THE WHOLE FLT ON HIS SCANNER AND A CHIEF FLT INSTRUCTOR AT A LCL FBO. ONE COMMENTED THAT HE NOW DOES ALL OF HIS OPTION OR CIRCLE TO LAND INSTRUCTION AT ANOTHER ARPTAND THE OTHER MENTIONED FEELING HARASSED BY THE TWR. I MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT THE EFFORT AT MHT SEEMS TO BE TO ASSIST THE PLT IN SAFELY ACCOMPLISHING THE FLT WHILE THE EFFORT AT ASH SEEMS TO BE TO RESTRICT THE PLT FROM MAKING THE FLT AT ALL. A COMPLICATING FACTOR IS THE LACK OF RADAR DISPLAY AT ASH. ASH ATC SAW FIT TO SEND ME TO THE NW TOWARDS THE MOUNTAINS AND REDUCED CEILINGS RATHER THAN ALLOWING ME TO STAY SAFELY IN THE PATTERN OR PROCEED DIRECTLY TO THE NE OVER LOWER TERRAIN TOWARDS MANCHESTER.

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.