Narrative:

I participated at the pilot's group fly-in at the fdk airport on jun/xx/98. While generally well run, it is my opinion that the ATC system was incapable of handling the volume of arriving traffic in a safe, orderly fashion. The system created temporary class D airspace around fdk, and established approach, tower, and ground frequencys. All traffic was to arrive over one designated point (mt airy), monitoring the approach frequency. Aircraft would be released from this point to the airport, or told to circle in an announced pattern for another try. All radio communication was to originate from the ground -- aircraft were to acknowledge all communications via wing rocks. Once released from mt airy, aircraft were to proceed to the airport, monitoring the tower frequency for instructions. Based on the above, we found ourselves on final to runway 5, too close to the aircraft ahead. ATC properly ordered us to go around and make right traffic for runway 30. We did, and landed safely, but there is disagreement between my copilot and myself if we were ever properly cleared for landing. We landed, believing an unexpected go around in that environment would be more disruptive than a possibly unclred landing. The cap members directing traffic were most helpful, but some need some training in hand signals. There were some used I've never seen documented in the aim. In contrast, the departure procedure seemed to be handled much more smoothly. No doubt this was because it was a simpler process. Additionally, however, the ground staff, making use of the radio during the taxi process, was very helpful.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PVT PLT OF A PIPER CHEROKEE, PA28RT, LANDED WITHOUT CLRNC DURING A SPECIAL AVIATION GATHERING ACTIVITY. RPTR WAS PREVIOUSLY, DURING ORIGINAL APCH TO ANOTHER RWY, DIRECTED TO GAR BY TWR CTLR AFTER BEING OBSERVED FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE TO ANOTHER ACFT ON FINAL (NMAC).

Narrative: I PARTICIPATED AT THE PLT'S GROUP FLY-IN AT THE FDK ARPT ON JUN/XX/98. WHILE GENERALLY WELL RUN, IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE ATC SYS WAS INCAPABLE OF HANDLING THE VOLUME OF ARRIVING TFC IN A SAFE, ORDERLY FASHION. THE SYS CREATED TEMPORARY CLASS D AIRSPACE AROUND FDK, AND ESTABLISHED APCH, TWR, AND GND FREQS. ALL TFC WAS TO ARRIVE OVER ONE DESIGNATED POINT (MT AIRY), MONITORING THE APCH FREQ. ACFT WOULD BE RELEASED FROM THIS POINT TO THE ARPT, OR TOLD TO CIRCLE IN AN ANNOUNCED PATTERN FOR ANOTHER TRY. ALL RADIO COM WAS TO ORIGINATE FROM THE GND -- ACFT WERE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALL COMS VIA WING ROCKS. ONCE RELEASED FROM MT AIRY, ACFT WERE TO PROCEED TO THE ARPT, MONITORING THE TWR FREQ FOR INSTRUCTIONS. BASED ON THE ABOVE, WE FOUND OURSELVES ON FINAL TO RWY 5, TOO CLOSE TO THE ACFT AHEAD. ATC PROPERLY ORDERED US TO GAR AND MAKE R TFC FOR RWY 30. WE DID, AND LANDED SAFELY, BUT THERE IS DISAGREEMENT BTWN MY COPLT AND MYSELF IF WE WERE EVER PROPERLY CLRED FOR LNDG. WE LANDED, BELIEVING AN UNEXPECTED GAR IN THAT ENVIRONMENT WOULD BE MORE DISRUPTIVE THAN A POSSIBLY UNCLRED LNDG. THE CAP MEMBERS DIRECTING TFC WERE MOST HELPFUL, BUT SOME NEED SOME TRAINING IN HAND SIGNALS. THERE WERE SOME USED I'VE NEVER SEEN DOCUMENTED IN THE AIM. IN CONTRAST, THE DEP PROC SEEMED TO BE HANDLED MUCH MORE SMOOTHLY. NO DOUBT THIS WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A SIMPLER PROCESS. ADDITIONALLY, HOWEVER, THE GND STAFF, MAKING USE OF THE RADIO DURING THE TAXI PROCESS, WAS VERY HELPFUL.

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.