Narrative:

On apr/fri/00, a PA28 aircraft landed on runway 19 without a landing clearance. I advised the controller in charge, and he filed a pilot deviation. On apr/mon/00 I was instructed to report to the air traffic manager's office. With the air traffic manager present, the operational supervisor advised me that they had decided not to forward this incident to FSDO. He felt that, in listening to the tape recording, I was not 'squeaky clean.' he pointed out that I did not once identify the facility in my radio xmissions -- that since I also had a touch-and-go operation in progress on runway 32, assigning runway 19 to aircraft was a potential confliction. He also said FSDO would question why I had not observed prior to his landing. Aircraft did not report 2 mi final, as instructed. On apr/tue/00 I requested with the air traffic manager to permit me to listen to the tape recording. I heard myself identify the facility on initial contact each and every time. Furthermore, I heard nothing that would have brought to question my professional credibility. When I advised the air traffic manager of this, he said they had, in fact, decided to forward the incident to FSDO. I believe our meeting in the manager's office on apr/mon/00 was a calculated attempt to persuade me to not press the issue. They tried to intimidate me by the bogus reasons mentioned. When they realized that I was filing a NASA ASRS report, and when I asked to hear the tapes, they felt that they'd better reverse their earlier decision to not file with FSDO. Interestingly, I would not have questioned management's decision to not file. They could've simply advised me of their decision without explanation. I still don't understand management agenda behind this. I only know that this runway incursion incident seemed unimportant to them.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A LCL CTLR RPT ON A LEVEL OF INTIMIDATION IMPOSED UPON HIM BY THE AIR TFC MGR DURING A REVIEW OF AN UNAUTH LNDG BY A PA28 AT ILG, DE.

Narrative: ON APR/FRI/00, A PA28 ACFT LANDED ON RWY 19 WITHOUT A LNDG CLRNC. I ADVISED THE CIC, AND HE FILED A PLTDEV. ON APR/MON/00 I WAS INSTRUCTED TO RPT TO THE AIR TFC MGR'S OFFICE. WITH THE AIR TFC MGR PRESENT, THE OPERATIONAL SUPVR ADVISED ME THAT THEY HAD DECIDED NOT TO FORWARD THIS INCIDENT TO FSDO. HE FELT THAT, IN LISTENING TO THE TAPE RECORDING, I WAS NOT 'SQUEAKY CLEAN.' HE POINTED OUT THAT I DID NOT ONCE IDENT THE FACILITY IN MY RADIO XMISSIONS -- THAT SINCE I ALSO HAD A TOUCH-AND-GO OP IN PROGRESS ON RWY 32, ASSIGNING RWY 19 TO ACFT WAS A POTENTIAL CONFLICTION. HE ALSO SAID FSDO WOULD QUESTION WHY I HAD NOT OBSERVED PRIOR TO HIS LNDG. ACFT DID NOT RPT 2 MI FINAL, AS INSTRUCTED. ON APR/TUE/00 I REQUESTED WITH THE AIR TFC MGR TO PERMIT ME TO LISTEN TO THE TAPE RECORDING. I HEARD MYSELF IDENT THE FACILITY ON INITIAL CONTACT EACH AND EVERY TIME. FURTHERMORE, I HEARD NOTHING THAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT TO QUESTION MY PROFESSIONAL CREDIBILITY. WHEN I ADVISED THE AIR TFC MGR OF THIS, HE SAID THEY HAD, IN FACT, DECIDED TO FORWARD THE INCIDENT TO FSDO. I BELIEVE OUR MEETING IN THE MGR'S OFFICE ON APR/MON/00 WAS A CALCULATED ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE ME TO NOT PRESS THE ISSUE. THEY TRIED TO INTIMIDATE ME BY THE BOGUS REASONS MENTIONED. WHEN THEY REALIZED THAT I WAS FILING A NASA ASRS RPT, AND WHEN I ASKED TO HEAR THE TAPES, THEY FELT THAT THEY'D BETTER REVERSE THEIR EARLIER DECISION TO NOT FILE WITH FSDO. INTERESTINGLY, I WOULD NOT HAVE QUESTIONED MGMNT'S DECISION TO NOT FILE. THEY COULD'VE SIMPLY ADVISED ME OF THEIR DECISION WITHOUT EXPLANATION. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND MGMNT AGENDA BEHIND THIS. I ONLY KNOW THAT THIS RWY INCURSION INCIDENT SEEMED UNIMPORTANT TO THEM.

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.