Narrative:

Phl approach coordination with ttn airport tower is very archaic, sometimes hazardous. A couple of times late handoffs have agitated tower controllers dealing with busy local traffic. More often, vectoring for 'slam dunk' visuals and extremely late turns for IFR approachs have made flight uneasy. Nov/xa/99 was one such instance with flight air carrier X from buf. The phl approach controller became busy and preoccupied with a VFR aircraft who wanted to pick up an IFR clearance. Still at 3000 ft, I saw a 'slam dunk' scenario developing. Realizing how busy he was, we reminded him we had airport in sight, figuring he would clear us for a visual. He said 'enter, right downwind for runway 34, #2 following a king air.' we were now well inside zone and a 'slam dunk' was imminent. My feeling was he meant for us to be in the pattern for a visual but was too busy to clarify it. I asked my copilot to ask him if we were cleared for the visual. I couldn't hear clearly what the copilot asked. I heard the word 'visual' spoken and the word 'roger' from the controller. I interpreted this an confirmation of a visual clearance. After descending to 2300 ft from 3000 ft, he told us to go back to 3000 ft. He did not say 'you were not cleared for visual, go back to 3000 ft.' he simply said 'go back to 3000 ft.' but I am note sure what he really wanted us to do. Why does phl approach hold us at 3000 ft when it is clear and we call visual? If they are busy with other traffic, why not at least clear us for the visual approach sooner to avoid 'slam dunks?'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR PLT MAKING VISUAL APCH INTO TTN ARPT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHY PHL APCH KEEPS FLTS UP AT 3000 FT UNTIL THE ARPT THEN HASTILY ISSUES CLRNC AND CHANGE TO A VERY BUSY TWR.

Narrative: PHL APCH COORD WITH TTN ARPT TWR IS VERY ARCHAIC, SOMETIMES HAZARDOUS. A COUPLE OF TIMES LATE HDOFS HAVE AGITATED TWR CTLRS DEALING WITH BUSY LCL TFC. MORE OFTEN, VECTORING FOR 'SLAM DUNK' VISUALS AND EXTREMELY LATE TURNS FOR IFR APCHS HAVE MADE FLT UNEASY. NOV/XA/99 WAS ONE SUCH INSTANCE WITH FLT ACR X FROM BUF. THE PHL APCH CTLR BECAME BUSY AND PREOCCUPIED WITH A VFR ACFT WHO WANTED TO PICK UP AN IFR CLRNC. STILL AT 3000 FT, I SAW A 'SLAM DUNK' SCENARIO DEVELOPING. REALIZING HOW BUSY HE WAS, WE REMINDED HIM WE HAD ARPT IN SIGHT, FIGURING HE WOULD CLR US FOR A VISUAL. HE SAID 'ENTER, R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 34, #2 FOLLOWING A KING AIR.' WE WERE NOW WELL INSIDE ZONE AND A 'SLAM DUNK' WAS IMMINENT. MY FEELING WAS HE MEANT FOR US TO BE IN THE PATTERN FOR A VISUAL BUT WAS TOO BUSY TO CLARIFY IT. I ASKED MY COPLT TO ASK HIM IF WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL. I COULDN'T HEAR CLRLY WHAT THE COPLT ASKED. I HEARD THE WORD 'VISUAL' SPOKEN AND THE WORD 'ROGER' FROM THE CTLR. I INTERPED THIS AN CONFIRMATION OF A VISUAL CLRNC. AFTER DSNDING TO 2300 FT FROM 3000 FT, HE TOLD US TO GO BACK TO 3000 FT. HE DID NOT SAY 'YOU WERE NOT CLRED FOR VISUAL, GO BACK TO 3000 FT.' HE SIMPLY SAID 'GO BACK TO 3000 FT.' BUT I AM NOTE SURE WHAT HE REALLY WANTED US TO DO. WHY DOES PHL APCH HOLD US AT 3000 FT WHEN IT IS CLR AND WE CALL VISUAL? IF THEY ARE BUSY WITH OTHER TFC, WHY NOT AT LEAST CLR US FOR THE VISUAL APCH SOONER TO AVOID 'SLAM DUNKS?'

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.