Narrative:

Far part 91.126(B)(2), regarding operations at an airport in class G airspace, states 'each pilot of a helicopter shall avoid the flow of fixed wing aircraft.' far 91.127(a), regarding operations at an airport in class east airspace, states, '...each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a class east airspace area must comply with the requirements of 91.126.' far 91.129(a), regarding operations in class D airspace, states, '...each person must comply with 91.126 and 91.127.' and, far 91.129(F)(2) reiterates that '...each pilot must avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic, if operating a helicopter.' I was refused departure and arrival paths which would have been in accordance with these sections of the FARS. Instead, I was put in a dangerous traffic situation by the hwd local controller while flying my bell-47 helicopter in the local traffic pattern at hwd following my request to the local controller for a departure from the pattern that would have kept me clear of the numerous airplanes that were in the right and left traffic patterns for runways 28R&left, respectively. Upon return to hwd approximately 20 mins later, I was also refused an arrival path that would have kept me clear of the airplane traffic. Instead, the controller instructed me to fly across the final approach of both runways to the other side of the airport and to expect an arrival path that would have had me flying through the right downwind traffic. I elected to decline these instructions which would have mixed me again with numerous airplanes in a busy pattern. The controller did not appreciate what she took for an uncooperative attitude on my part. We debated the issue on the tower frequency. I finally managed to arrive at my intended landing area with an arrival that was acceptable to us both. About 10 mins later, I called for another takeoff and requested my preferred departure. I was given the same departure that had previously led to an unsafe mix of airplanes and helicopter. I declined that clearance and asked again for the non interfering departure only to be told to call the tower to discuss a possible violation. At no time did I operate or maneuver the helicopter other than in accordance with the controller's clrncs. I did, as PIC, decline an arrival clearance and a subsequent departure clearance with the words 'unable to comply' and, in each case, requested an alternate that would have kept me clear of the fixed wing traffic and in accordance with far 91.129. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that she had not heard back from the tower supervisor as to the outcome of his review and investigation of this matter. However, she did say that the controller was new to the facility and that over a period of yrs, the other controllers did use the routing she had requested and was used to flying.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HELI PLT REFUSES ATCT CTLR DEP ROUTING AFTER TKOF DUE TO THE POTENTIAL OF INTERFERENCE WITH FIXED WING ACFT IN THE TFC PATTERN AND ON APCH TO LAND. CTLR REQUESTED RPTR TO CALL THE TWR.

Narrative: FAR PART 91.126(B)(2), REGARDING OPS AT AN ARPT IN CLASS G AIRSPACE, STATES 'EACH PLT OF A HELI SHALL AVOID THE FLOW OF FIXED WING ACFT.' FAR 91.127(A), REGARDING OPS AT AN ARPT IN CLASS E AIRSPACE, STATES, '...EACH PERSON OPERATING AN ACFT ON OR IN THE VICINITY OF AN ARPT IN A CLASS E AIRSPACE AREA MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 91.126.' FAR 91.129(A), REGARDING OPS IN CLASS D AIRSPACE, STATES, '...EACH PERSON MUST COMPLY WITH 91.126 AND 91.127.' AND, FAR 91.129(F)(2) REITERATES THAT '...EACH PLT MUST AVOID THE FLOW OF FIXED WING TFC, IF OPERATING A HELI.' I WAS REFUSED DEP AND ARR PATHS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE SECTIONS OF THE FARS. INSTEAD, I WAS PUT IN A DANGEROUS TFC SIT BY THE HWD LCL CTLR WHILE FLYING MY BELL-47 HELI IN THE LCL TFC PATTERN AT HWD FOLLOWING MY REQUEST TO THE LCL CTLR FOR A DEP FROM THE PATTERN THAT WOULD HAVE KEPT ME CLR OF THE NUMEROUS AIRPLANES THAT WERE IN THE R AND L TFC PATTERNS FOR RWYS 28R&L, RESPECTIVELY. UPON RETURN TO HWD APPROX 20 MINS LATER, I WAS ALSO REFUSED AN ARR PATH THAT WOULD HAVE KEPT ME CLR OF THE AIRPLANE TFC. INSTEAD, THE CTLR INSTRUCTED ME TO FLY ACROSS THE FINAL APCH OF BOTH RWYS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARPT AND TO EXPECT AN ARR PATH THAT WOULD HAVE HAD ME FLYING THROUGH THE R DOWNWIND TFC. I ELECTED TO DECLINE THESE INSTRUCTIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE MIXED ME AGAIN WITH NUMEROUS AIRPLANES IN A BUSY PATTERN. THE CTLR DID NOT APPRECIATE WHAT SHE TOOK FOR AN UNCOOPERATIVE ATTITUDE ON MY PART. WE DEBATED THE ISSUE ON THE TWR FREQ. I FINALLY MANAGED TO ARRIVE AT MY INTENDED LNDG AREA WITH AN ARR THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO US BOTH. ABOUT 10 MINS LATER, I CALLED FOR ANOTHER TKOF AND REQUESTED MY PREFERRED DEP. I WAS GIVEN THE SAME DEP THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY LED TO AN UNSAFE MIX OF AIRPLANES AND HELI. I DECLINED THAT CLRNC AND ASKED AGAIN FOR THE NON INTERFERING DEP ONLY TO BE TOLD TO CALL THE TWR TO DISCUSS A POSSIBLE VIOLATION. AT NO TIME DID I OPERATE OR MANEUVER THE HELI OTHER THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CTLR'S CLRNCS. I DID, AS PIC, DECLINE AN ARR CLRNC AND A SUBSEQUENT DEP CLRNC WITH THE WORDS 'UNABLE TO COMPLY' AND, IN EACH CASE, REQUESTED AN ALTERNATE THAT WOULD HAVE KEPT ME CLR OF THE FIXED WING TFC AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 91.129. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT SHE HAD NOT HEARD BACK FROM THE TWR SUPVR AS TO THE OUTCOME OF HIS REVIEW AND INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER. HOWEVER, SHE DID SAY THAT THE CTLR WAS NEW TO THE FACILITY AND THAT OVER A PERIOD OF YRS, THE OTHER CTLRS DID USE THE ROUTING SHE HAD REQUESTED AND WAS USED TO FLYING.

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.