Narrative:

Executed a landing approach to runway 29L at toa airport. Encountered heavy turbulence and 10 KT windshear at about 300 ft, resulting in unstabilized and dangerous approach. Situation warranted a go around, but I felt compelled to comply with toa municipal code which prohibits any '...action by an aircraft consisting of an approach over the airport for a landing where the pilot intentionally does not make contact with the runway' on sundays and holidays. As a result, I continued the approach until about 30 ft AGL, at which point I aborted the landing (in violation of torrance municipal code) and requested approach to runway 29R. The tower requested and received a verbal report over ground control frequency on the incident. Contributing factors: toa municipal code sections 51.5.4-51.5.7 prohibit aborted lndgs (low approachs) during 'prohibited hours' without consideration of safety or authority/authorized of PIC under far 91.3. Since sep/96, 14 pilots have received letters from toa threatening them with fines and jail terms for 'prohibited actions' -- even in cases where the control tower had requested specific 'prohibited actions.' 'prohibited actions' include low approachs (including aborted lndgs, gars, and missed IFR approachs). Recommended corrective action: FAA should investigate local laws that conflict with FARS -- particularly where far 91.3 is contradicted by local laws. FAA should assert its jurisdiction in these instances to preclude uncertainty on the part of the PIC. Factors affecting the quality of human performance: this is a serious safety issue. PIC's at toa do not know what laws apply -- FARS or local laws. Decisions such as this must be made in seconds. There should be no room for uncertainty! Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he has not received a warning letter from the airport authority/authorized. However, he is concerned the airport authority/authorized does take violation action even though the pilots have not deliberately violated the rules. He was informed that the local FAA FSDO would be the appropriate resource to help in clarifying the applicable rules regarding this matter, but they do not have power to override action taken by the airport authority/authorized.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LANCAIR PVT PLT ABANDONS LNDG ATTEMPT AT TOA DUE TO WINDSHEAR AND REQUESTED AN APCH TO ANOTHER RWY WHICH RESULTED IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF ARPT RULES OF NO LOW PASSES PERMITTED ON WKENDS.

Narrative: EXECUTED A LNDG APCH TO RWY 29L AT TOA ARPT. ENCOUNTERED HVY TURB AND 10 KT WINDSHEAR AT ABOUT 300 FT, RESULTING IN UNSTABILIZED AND DANGEROUS APCH. SIT WARRANTED A GAR, BUT I FELT COMPELLED TO COMPLY WITH TOA MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH PROHIBITS ANY '...ACTION BY AN ACFT CONSISTING OF AN APCH OVER THE ARPT FOR A LNDG WHERE THE PLT INTENTIONALLY DOES NOT MAKE CONTACT WITH THE RWY' ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS. AS A RESULT, I CONTINUED THE APCH UNTIL ABOUT 30 FT AGL, AT WHICH POINT I ABORTED THE LNDG (IN VIOLATION OF TORRANCE MUNICIPAL CODE) AND REQUESTED APCH TO RWY 29R. THE TWR REQUESTED AND RECEIVED A VERBAL RPT OVER GND CTL FREQ ON THE INCIDENT. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: TOA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 51.5.4-51.5.7 PROHIBIT ABORTED LNDGS (LOW APCHS) DURING 'PROHIBITED HRS' WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY OR AUTH OF PIC UNDER FAR 91.3. SINCE SEP/96, 14 PLTS HAVE RECEIVED LETTERS FROM TOA THREATENING THEM WITH FINES AND JAIL TERMS FOR 'PROHIBITED ACTIONS' -- EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE CTL TWR HAD REQUESTED SPECIFIC 'PROHIBITED ACTIONS.' 'PROHIBITED ACTIONS' INCLUDE LOW APCHS (INCLUDING ABORTED LNDGS, GARS, AND MISSED IFR APCHS). RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION: FAA SHOULD INVESTIGATE LCL LAWS THAT CONFLICT WITH FARS -- PARTICULARLY WHERE FAR 91.3 IS CONTRADICTED BY LCL LAWS. FAA SHOULD ASSERT ITS JURISDICTION IN THESE INSTANCES TO PRECLUDE UNCERTAINTY ON THE PART OF THE PIC. FACTORS AFFECTING THE QUALITY OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE: THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE. PIC'S AT TOA DO NOT KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLY -- FARS OR LCL LAWS. DECISIONS SUCH AS THIS MUST BE MADE IN SECONDS. THERE SHOULD BE NO ROOM FOR UNCERTAINTY! CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED A WARNING LETTER FROM THE ARPT AUTH. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED THE ARPT AUTH DOES TAKE VIOLATION ACTION EVEN THOUGH THE PLTS HAVE NOT DELIBERATELY VIOLATED THE RULES. HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE LCL FAA FSDO WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE RESOURCE TO HELP IN CLARIFYING THE APPLICABLE RULES REGARDING THIS MATTER, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE PWR TO OVERRIDE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ARPT AUTH.

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.