Narrative:

For IFR recency of experience requirements, the PF requested multiple approachs at pne. We were given vectors, and subsequently cleared for the ILS runway 24 approach at pne. When advised to contact the tower, the PF did so by stating, 'tower, this is air carrier XXX.' pne tower responded by saying, 'air carrier XXX go ahead.' PF then replied that he was inbound on the ILS 24 approach, upon which the tower advised us to report a 2 mi final. Communications on the next approach, another ILS runway 24 at pne, were similar, with the tower controller responding in a manner which made it seem that we were not expected. I found this tower controller's response unusual since it seemed he was completely unaware of our position and intentions when we were advised to contact him by approach control. The third approach of the evening was a request from the PF for the localizer back course runway 6 approach at pne. We were given vectors, and subsequently cleared for this approach, which includes a FAF of a 5 mi 'radar fix.' upon reaching this fix, approach control advised of our location and instructed us to contact the tower. The PF's workload was such that he did not contact the tower immediately, and when it became apparent that he may not do so, I contacted the tower and advised that we were inbound on the localizer back course runway 6 approach. Tower responded by advising us to report a 2 mi final. At that point we were already near a 2 mi final. The tower controller seemed incredulous and asked if this was our initial call to the tower. I responded in the affirmative, and at this point we were approximately on a 1 1/2 mi final. The tower seemed quite disturbed by this, and instructed us to execute a missed approach. He furthermore requested that we call him upon landing. I did so, since it was confusing to me that the tower seemed to be unaware of our position and intentions at each initial call after being advised to contact the tower by ATC. I asked the tower if in fact he is not informed by approach that we are inbound during practice instrument approachs. He responded that yes, he is aware, as long as he 'has time to look at his flight strip' (his words). I asked further that, if the tower has conflicting traffic, why are we cleared for the practice approach. His response was that phl approach control 'does this all the time. They don't care what traffic we have at the airport.' this is news to me. If there is conflicting traffic because of runway in use, instrument departures or other sits that preclude us from flying the requested approach, then I expect that approach control would not clear us for the requested approach. This is commonly the situation in training, and not a problem for the instructor. The bottom line is that, in spite of my lengthy telephone conversation with the tower controller, I have not reached a 'meeting of the minds' on this issue. Pne tower said that regardless of approach instructions, we must always contact the tower prior to entering their class D airspace. This seems impossible while on the localizer back course runway 6 approach at pne, since the 5 mi 'radar fix' that ATC must call for us occurs right on the boundary of pne's class D. Having to acknowledge approach instructions, tune radios, wait for frequency congestion to subside, configuring the aircraft, etc, takes time. Other problems such as radio transmitter failure may worsen the situation. I still find it hard to believe that pne tower was not aware of our position and intentions when cleared for a practice instrument approach. If that is not the case it needs to be addressed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC IN BE90 AT PNE WERE CONDUCTING PRACTICE APCHS AND DURING ONE OF THE APCHS, THE CREW DID NOT CALL THE TWR AS INSTRUCTED BY APCH CTL. IN A DISCUSSION WITH THE TWR, THE RPTR CLAIMS THE CTLR SAID HE IS AWARE OF ACFT ON APCHS IF HE HAS TIME TO LOOK AT HIS FLT STRIPS. THE PLT SAID THAT AT OTHER ARPTS WHERE HE PRACTICES, THE TWR IS AWARE OF HIS POS AND TYPE OF APCH.

Narrative: FOR IFR RECENCY OF EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS, THE PF REQUESTED MULTIPLE APCHS AT PNE. WE WERE GIVEN VECTORS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 24 APCH AT PNE. WHEN ADVISED TO CONTACT THE TWR, THE PF DID SO BY STATING, 'TWR, THIS IS ACR XXX.' PNE TWR RESPONDED BY SAYING, 'ACR XXX GO AHEAD.' PF THEN REPLIED THAT HE WAS INBOUND ON THE ILS 24 APCH, UPON WHICH THE TWR ADVISED US TO RPT A 2 MI FINAL. COMS ON THE NEXT APCH, ANOTHER ILS RWY 24 AT PNE, WERE SIMILAR, WITH THE TWR CTLR RESPONDING IN A MANNER WHICH MADE IT SEEM THAT WE WERE NOT EXPECTED. I FOUND THIS TWR CTLR'S RESPONSE UNUSUAL SINCE IT SEEMED HE WAS COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF OUR POS AND INTENTIONS WHEN WE WERE ADVISED TO CONTACT HIM BY APCH CTL. THE THIRD APCH OF THE EVENING WAS A REQUEST FROM THE PF FOR THE LOC BACK COURSE RWY 6 APCH AT PNE. WE WERE GIVEN VECTORS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED FOR THIS APCH, WHICH INCLUDES A FAF OF A 5 MI 'RADAR FIX.' UPON REACHING THIS FIX, APCH CTL ADVISED OF OUR LOCATION AND INSTRUCTED US TO CONTACT THE TWR. THE PF'S WORKLOAD WAS SUCH THAT HE DID NOT CONTACT THE TWR IMMEDIATELY, AND WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT HE MAY NOT DO SO, I CONTACTED THE TWR AND ADVISED THAT WE WERE INBOUND ON THE LOC BACK COURSE RWY 6 APCH. TWR RESPONDED BY ADVISING US TO RPT A 2 MI FINAL. AT THAT POINT WE WERE ALREADY NEAR A 2 MI FINAL. THE TWR CTLR SEEMED INCREDULOUS AND ASKED IF THIS WAS OUR INITIAL CALL TO THE TWR. I RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND AT THIS POINT WE WERE APPROX ON A 1 1/2 MI FINAL. THE TWR SEEMED QUITE DISTURBED BY THIS, AND INSTRUCTED US TO EXECUTE A MISSED APCH. HE FURTHERMORE REQUESTED THAT WE CALL HIM UPON LNDG. I DID SO, SINCE IT WAS CONFUSING TO ME THAT THE TWR SEEMED TO BE UNAWARE OF OUR POS AND INTENTIONS AT EACH INITIAL CALL AFTER BEING ADVISED TO CONTACT THE TWR BY ATC. I ASKED THE TWR IF IN FACT HE IS NOT INFORMED BY APCH THAT WE ARE INBOUND DURING PRACTICE INST APCHS. HE RESPONDED THAT YES, HE IS AWARE, AS LONG AS HE 'HAS TIME TO LOOK AT HIS FLT STRIP' (HIS WORDS). I ASKED FURTHER THAT, IF THE TWR HAS CONFLICTING TFC, WHY ARE WE CLRED FOR THE PRACTICE APCH. HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT PHL APCH CTL 'DOES THIS ALL THE TIME. THEY DON'T CARE WHAT TFC WE HAVE AT THE ARPT.' THIS IS NEWS TO ME. IF THERE IS CONFLICTING TFC BECAUSE OF RWY IN USE, INST DEPS OR OTHER SITS THAT PRECLUDE US FROM FLYING THE REQUESTED APCH, THEN I EXPECT THAT APCH CTL WOULD NOT CLR US FOR THE REQUESTED APCH. THIS IS COMMONLY THE SIT IN TRAINING, AND NOT A PROB FOR THE INSTRUCTOR. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT, IN SPITE OF MY LENGTHY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE TWR CTLR, I HAVE NOT REACHED A 'MEETING OF THE MINDS' ON THIS ISSUE. PNE TWR SAID THAT REGARDLESS OF APCH INSTRUCTIONS, WE MUST ALWAYS CONTACT THE TWR PRIOR TO ENTERING THEIR CLASS D AIRSPACE. THIS SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE WHILE ON THE LOC BACK COURSE RWY 6 APCH AT PNE, SINCE THE 5 MI 'RADAR FIX' THAT ATC MUST CALL FOR US OCCURS RIGHT ON THE BOUNDARY OF PNE'S CLASS D. HAVING TO ACKNOWLEDGE APCH INSTRUCTIONS, TUNE RADIOS, WAIT FOR FREQ CONGESTION TO SUBSIDE, CONFIGURING THE ACFT, ETC, TAKES TIME. OTHER PROBS SUCH AS RADIO XMITTER FAILURE MAY WORSEN THE SIT. I STILL FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT PNE TWR WAS NOT AWARE OF OUR POS AND INTENTIONS WHEN CLRED FOR A PRACTICE INST APCH. IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

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.