Narrative:

I arrived VFR at lal and was directed to call 'passing the interstate' north of the field and expect runway 9 left downwind. Apparently I called passing the wrong interstate, which caused a little confusion with tower controllers. After that was sorted out, I was directed to follow behind a lancair on base leg as I was entering downwind. I turned base with plenty of spacing, but the lancair slowed much more than I anticipated on final, so tower sent me around just as I was pulling the throttles to idle and starting to round out. I went around as directed, completed a closed pattern and landed uneventfully. Pulling off the runway, I contacted ground, but apparently conflicted with another transmission (from a ground vehicle, I believe). Since there was no traffic in sight, I continued to taxi for about 10 seconds (perceived) toward the terminal before finally establishing contact with the ground controller, who advised that I should have stopped at the hold line for clearance to taxi, per FARS. While technically true, it is very seldom required in the real world. I feel the controller's interpretation and application of the FARS so strictly will only add to animosity between pilots and controllers. I also feel he was influenced by the previous events described above but have no basis to support that feeling. Regardless, if controllers are going to insist on 'letter of the law' compliance with or without justification, I will comply in the future. It's too bad we can't be a little friendlier. I also believe the late go around call from the tower controller created a less safe situation than is justifiable. The lancair was clearing as I was sent around and there was no real conflict other than a strict interpretation of the rules.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INBOUND BE55 TO LAL MISSES TFC PATTERN RPTING POINT, FOLLOWS TOO CLOSE TO LNDG LANCAIR, RE-ENTERS TFC PATTERN, LANDS, FAILS TO CONTACT GND CTL IN A TIMELY MANNER AND IS CONCERNED THAT ATC IS NOT FLEXIBLE OR FRIENDLY.

Narrative: I ARRIVED VFR AT LAL AND WAS DIRECTED TO CALL 'PASSING THE INTERSTATE' N OF THE FIELD AND EXPECT RWY 9 L DOWNWIND. APPARENTLY I CALLED PASSING THE WRONG INTERSTATE, WHICH CAUSED A LITTLE CONFUSION WITH TWR CTLRS. AFTER THAT WAS SORTED OUT, I WAS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW BEHIND A LANCAIR ON BASE LEG AS I WAS ENTERING DOWNWIND. I TURNED BASE WITH PLENTY OF SPACING, BUT THE LANCAIR SLOWED MUCH MORE THAN I ANTICIPATED ON FINAL, SO TWR SENT ME AROUND JUST AS I WAS PULLING THE THROTTLES TO IDLE AND STARTING TO ROUND OUT. I WENT AROUND AS DIRECTED, COMPLETED A CLOSED PATTERN AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. PULLING OFF THE RWY, I CONTACTED GND, BUT APPARENTLY CONFLICTED WITH ANOTHER XMISSION (FROM A GND VEHICLE, I BELIEVE). SINCE THERE WAS NO TFC IN SIGHT, I CONTINUED TO TAXI FOR ABOUT 10 SECONDS (PERCEIVED) TOWARD THE TERMINAL BEFORE FINALLY ESTABLISHING CONTACT WITH THE GND CTLR, WHO ADVISED THAT I SHOULD HAVE STOPPED AT THE HOLD LINE FOR CLRNC TO TAXI, PER FARS. WHILE TECHNICALLY TRUE, IT IS VERY SELDOM REQUIRED IN THE REAL WORLD. I FEEL THE CTLR'S INTERP AND APPLICATION OF THE FARS SO STRICTLY WILL ONLY ADD TO ANIMOSITY BTWN PLTS AND CTLRS. I ALSO FEEL HE WAS INFLUENCED BY THE PREVIOUS EVENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE BUT HAVE NO BASIS TO SUPPORT THAT FEELING. REGARDLESS, IF CTLRS ARE GOING TO INSIST ON 'LETTER OF THE LAW' COMPLIANCE WITH OR WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, I WILL COMPLY IN THE FUTURE. IT'S TOO BAD WE CAN'T BE A LITTLE FRIENDLIER. I ALSO BELIEVE THE LATE GAR CALL FROM THE TWR CTLR CREATED A LESS SAFE SIT THAN IS JUSTIFIABLE. THE LANCAIR WAS CLRING AS I WAS SENT AROUND AND THERE WAS NO REAL CONFLICT OTHER THAN A STRICT INTERP OF THE RULES.

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.