Narrative:

On a local training flight with a pre-solo student; I departed to the south; exiting airport's class D airspace. While maneuvering approximately 12 miles away and 7000 ft MSL; tower queried us to identify and in an annoyed tone noted that we were in the way of an airliner that would be descending and maneuvering for a right base entry for runway 30. It is worth noting that this is a VFR contract tower that has recently had installed a screen to monitor the on-airport radar feeding from ZLC ATC. Tower has been flooding pilots operating outside the class D airspace with unnecessary position reports of nearby aircraft which are either already visually tracked by the pilots; or have adequate separation and on diverging tracts. Additionally; they operate as if airliners and jets in VMC have first priority and right-of-way over all their traffic. Later in the lesson we transitioned to the north practice area by crossing over the west end of the airport's class D airspace at 8000 ft MSL; clearing its upper limit of 7000 ft. Tower tracked our progress and gave position reports to others. Nearing the end of the lesson we proceeded inbound from the north. When at approximately 6800 ft and 5.5 NM (LORAN) as I prepared to update tower at our position and intentions to maneuver for a downwind pattern entry; tower called us and advised that we were inside the class D and cleared us for a base. I declined the base and informed them I would maneuver farther from the field to arrive at a more convenient angle. Tower continued to update our progress and advised us that we were not yet clear of the class D despite our LORAN and sectional. Tower eventually cleared us for downwind entry. During a follow-up discussion tower mentioned that they had to coordinate with center to keep an inbound airline on the visual on our side of the airport high to cross to the other side. Some elements compounding this event: 1) pilot believed traffic report from tower while operating outside class D airspace constituted the establishment and maintenance of 'two-way' communication with tower. 2) with two-way communication established; pilot did not feel position error warranted the attention tower placed on it. 3) tower believes the pilots require 'permission' to operate in class D; as opposed to regulations 'establish two-way communication and comply with ATC instructions.' 4) center of radar screen may not match position used to define airport's class D airspace. 5) controller's position readout of pilot and lateral limits the class D seemed further reaching than pilot's understood limits of the airspace. 6) LORAN alone is not accurate enough to maintain airspace compliance. 7) tower controller was ignorant as to the needs of the training environment and the benefit of downwind pattern entry. Controller incorrectly interpreted instructor's traditional favoritism to the downwind with primary students as a disrespect for ATC and scorn of control towers. 8) controller indicted that he thought training pilot to be in complete command of their aircraft largely involve teaching to pilot to blindly obey ATC instruction regardless of skill level or ability. Clearly; there is room for improvement on each party's part. In closing; this CFI has repeatedly offered to fly local controllers; with no response from the tower. The tower's continual use of 'approved' to acknowledge position reports and informational updates has conditioned tower into believing that they must approve all aircraft actions. Their 'assist' of aircraft outside the airspace give the false impression that they are the ones primarily responsible for the collision avoidance separation of VFR aircraft. And their use of radar information; as if they were an approach control; forces pilot to deal with ATC employees untrained for the tasks they are attempting.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Instructor pilot voiced concerns regarding ATC services by contract controllers at BZN; focusing on the recent introduction of RADAR equipment/procedures utilized by ATC personnel.

Narrative: On a local training flight with a pre-solo student; I departed to the south; exiting airport's Class D airspace. While maneuvering approximately 12 miles away and 7000 FT MSL; Tower queried us to identify and in an annoyed tone noted that we were in the way of an airliner that would be descending and maneuvering for a right base entry for Runway 30. It is worth noting that this is a VFR contract Tower that has recently had installed a screen to monitor the on-airport radar feeding from ZLC ATC. Tower has been flooding pilots operating outside the Class D airspace with unnecessary position reports of nearby aircraft which are either already visually tracked by the pilots; or have adequate separation and on diverging tracts. Additionally; they operate as if airliners and jets in VMC have first priority and right-of-way over all their traffic. Later in the lesson we transitioned to the north practice area by crossing over the west end of the airport's Class D airspace at 8000 FT MSL; clearing its upper limit of 7000 FT. Tower tracked our progress and gave position reports to others. Nearing the end of the lesson we proceeded inbound from the north. When at approximately 6800 FT and 5.5 NM (LORAN) as I prepared to update Tower at our position and intentions to maneuver for a downwind pattern entry; Tower called us and advised that we were inside the Class D and cleared us for a base. I declined the base and informed them I would maneuver farther from the field to arrive at a more convenient angle. Tower continued to update our progress and advised us that we were not yet clear of the Class D despite our LORAN and sectional. Tower eventually cleared us for downwind entry. During a follow-up discussion Tower mentioned that they had to coordinate with Center to keep an inbound airline on the visual on our side of the airport high to cross to the other side. Some elements compounding this event: 1) Pilot believed traffic report from Tower while operating outside Class D airspace constituted the establishment and maintenance of 'two-way' communication with Tower. 2) With two-way communication established; pilot did not feel position error warranted the attention Tower placed on it. 3) Tower believes the pilots require 'permission' to operate in Class D; as opposed to regulations 'establish two-way communication and comply with ATC instructions.' 4) Center of radar screen may not match position used to define airport's Class D airspace. 5) Controller's position readout of pilot and lateral limits the class D seemed further reaching than pilot's understood limits of the airspace. 6) LORAN alone is not accurate enough to maintain airspace compliance. 7) Tower Controller was ignorant as to the needs of the training environment and the benefit of downwind pattern entry. Controller incorrectly interpreted instructor's traditional favoritism to the downwind with primary students as a disrespect for ATC and scorn of Control Towers. 8) Controller indicted that he thought training pilot to be in complete command of their aircraft largely involve teaching to pilot to blindly obey ATC instruction regardless of skill level or ability. Clearly; there is room for improvement on each party's part. In closing; this CFI has repeatedly offered to fly local Controllers; with no response from the Tower. The Tower's continual use of 'approved' to acknowledge position reports and informational updates has conditioned Tower into believing that they must approve all aircraft actions. Their 'assist' of aircraft outside the airspace give the false impression that they are the ones primarily responsible for the collision avoidance separation of VFR aircraft. And their use of radar information; as if they were an Approach Control; forces pilot to deal with ATC employees untrained for the tasks they are attempting.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.