37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 864878 |
Time | |
Date | 200912 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | PVU.Airport |
State Reference | UT |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Dusk |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | Small Aircraft Low Wing 1 Eng Fixed Gear |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
Route In Use | Other Practice Approach |
Flight Plan | None |
Person 1 | |
Function | Instructor |
Qualification | Flight Crew Commercial Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Instrument |
Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 100 Flight Crew Total 1500 Flight Crew Type 1000 |
Events | |
Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Provo tower is contract operated. They are constantly making decisions that are affected by their company policies to limit their liability rather than enhance the safety of aviation. One of the controllers is almost always the one who creates the unsafe situations. He/she was the controller during this occurrence. At provo airport we have 3 published IFR approaches we use for training purposes. For years we have done the approaches in class east airspace; then transitioning into class D. We normally would contact the tower 10 miles out on the final approach course. Recently provo tower has implemented a procedure in which we are suppose to contact salt lake approach before we will be allowed a practice VFR approach in east airspace. We tried to contact salt lake center and were ignored because they knew our call sign and decided they did not have time for us. We called three times and were not ever responded to. We then contacted provo tower for a straight in approach and were denied because we did not talk to salt lake. I can't practice an approach if I don't talk to salt lake and salt lake won't talk to me. I then requested a straight in and was told unable and to enter a left downwind. I asked why they were unable and was told that a hawker was inbound for the visual. So we complied and broke off to the east. We got the hawker in sight and then reported that we had the hawker in sight and were able to follow and requested another straight in; still 10 miles out in east airspace. We were denied again. I then queried again why and was informed that it was because their unsafe procedure had almost caused a near miss the week before. We were then told to enter a left down wind for runway 13 and I requested a left base and again was denied and told to enter left downwind. After 5 minutes the controller allowed us a left base entry when he realized he was being ridiculous. So basically there is no safe way to practice approaches in provo and we are constantly in fear of confrontations with provo tower. The purpose of contacting approach is because there was another near miss before the approach control procedure; but salt lake does not have radar contact once on the final approach course anyway. Since they implemented this new procedure there have been more occurrences than before and they won't change their procedure because of legalities. I am tired of my safety coming second to legal and corporate reasons. This is a big on going problem in provo utah. Two tower controllers are really the only ones who cause the confrontations. The rest of the controllers at provo are professional and courteous. Provo tower was created because of the high volume of flight training.there are two issues that exist. 1. Two unsafe controllers. 2. The procedure between salt lake approach and provo tower is unsafe and unacceptable for practice instrument approaches. No one wants to own us between 12 miles out and class D airspace for legal reasons and there is no radar in this area. Provo tower claims there are other higher reasons for this unsafe procedure that come down from ATC regional office. I don't understand all of the legalities; I just know that my safety is not at the heart of any of it.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Flight Instructor at PVU expressed concern regarding the ATC service provided by the Tower contract personnel; claiming some controllers are unsafe and current procedures are not conducive to instrument training.
Narrative: Provo Tower is contract operated. They are constantly making decisions that are affected by their company policies to limit their liability rather than enhance the safety of aviation. One of the Controllers is almost always the one who creates the unsafe situations. He/she was the Controller during this occurrence. At Provo airport we have 3 published IFR approaches we use for training purposes. For years we have done the approaches in class E airspace; then transitioning into class D. We normally would contact the Tower 10 miles out on the final approach course. Recently Provo Tower has implemented a procedure in which we are suppose to contact Salt Lake Approach before we will be allowed a practice VFR approach in E airspace. We tried to contact Salt Lake Center and were ignored because they knew our call sign and decided they did not have time for us. We called three times and were not ever responded to. We then contacted Provo Tower for a straight in approach and were denied because we did not talk to Salt Lake. I can't practice an approach if I don't talk to Salt Lake and Salt Lake won't talk to me. I then requested a straight in and was told unable and to enter a left downwind. I asked why they were unable and was told that a Hawker was inbound for the visual. So we complied and broke off to the east. We got the Hawker in sight and then reported that we had the Hawker in sight and were able to follow and requested another straight in; still 10 miles out in E airspace. We were denied again. I then queried again why and was informed that it was because their unsafe procedure had almost caused a near miss the week before. We were then told to enter a left down wind for runway 13 and I requested a left base and again was denied and told to enter left downwind. After 5 minutes the Controller allowed us a left base entry when he realized he was being ridiculous. So basically there is no safe way to practice approaches in Provo and we are constantly in fear of confrontations with Provo Tower. The purpose of contacting Approach is because there was another near miss before the approach control procedure; but Salt Lake does not have RADAR contact once on the final approach course anyway. Since they implemented this new procedure there have been more occurrences than before and they won't change their procedure because of legalities. I am tired of my safety coming second to legal and corporate reasons. This is a big on going problem in Provo Utah. Two Tower Controllers are really the only ones who cause the confrontations. The rest of the controllers at Provo are professional and courteous. Provo Tower was created because of the high volume of flight training.There are two issues that exist. 1. Two unsafe controllers. 2. The procedure between Salt Lake Approach and Provo Tower is unsafe and unacceptable for practice instrument approaches. No one wants to own us between 12 miles out and class D airspace for legal reasons and there is no RADAR in this area. Provo Tower claims there are other higher reasons for this unsafe procedure that come down from ATC Regional Office. I don't understand all of the legalities; I just know that my safety is not at the heart of any of it.
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.