Narrative:

Hou ARTCC vectored us, corp X, overhead lrd, our destination at 5000' MSL. We reported the airport in sight 2 times and requested a visual approach. Hou continued to vector us around reference to many VFR targets. We were turned right downwind and cleared for a visual approach from 4000' MSL to runway 35 (right or left?). Having spotted traffic to runway 35L, I directed the PF to approach runway 35R. Only after my insistence did hou hand us off to lrd tower. This occurred approximately 1 1/2 mi on final. In the meantime, lrd tower had spun out the runway 35L traffic, not knowing for sure what runway we intended to land on. The late handoff caused an unnecessary burden on the tower operator's ability to provide an orderly arrival sequence. This report was prompted by my being questioned via telephone by the tower operator 2 hours later. The thrust of his inquiry was as to when hou center gave us the handoff to tower. He indicated to me that this was not an uncommon occurrence. It is our company policy to not cancel an IFR flight plan when the destination has an operating control tower, therefore following the controller's instructions were SOP for us. However, the arrival to lrd was too high, too uncoordinated (ARTCC controller/tower) and a much too late handoff to be consistent with the safe, orderly sequencing of arriving aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORP JET FLT CREW COMPLAINT REFERENCE LATE TRANSFER OF ATC JURISDICTION FROM ZHU TO LRD TWR. CORP ACFT WELL INTO ATA AND IN POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH TWR PATTERN TRAFFIC. OPERATIONAL DEVIATION.

Narrative: HOU ARTCC VECTORED US, CORP X, OVERHEAD LRD, OUR DEST AT 5000' MSL. WE RPTED THE ARPT IN SIGHT 2 TIMES AND REQUESTED A VISUAL APCH. HOU CONTINUED TO VECTOR US AROUND REF TO MANY VFR TARGETS. WE WERE TURNED RIGHT DOWNWIND AND CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH FROM 4000' MSL TO RWY 35 (R OR L?). HAVING SPOTTED TFC TO RWY 35L, I DIRECTED THE PF TO APCH RWY 35R. ONLY AFTER MY INSISTENCE DID HOU HAND US OFF TO LRD TWR. THIS OCCURRED APPROX 1 1/2 MI ON FINAL. IN THE MEANTIME, LRD TWR HAD SPUN OUT THE RWY 35L TFC, NOT KNOWING FOR SURE WHAT RWY WE INTENDED TO LAND ON. THE LATE HDOF CAUSED AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN ON THE TWR OPERATOR'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE AN ORDERLY ARR SEQUENCE. THIS RPT WAS PROMPTED BY MY BEING QUESTIONED VIA TELEPHONE BY THE TWR OPERATOR 2 HRS LATER. THE THRUST OF HIS INQUIRY WAS AS TO WHEN HOU CENTER GAVE US THE HDOF TO TWR. HE INDICATED TO ME THAT THIS WAS NOT AN UNCOMMON OCCURRENCE. IT IS OUR COMPANY POLICY TO NOT CANCEL AN IFR FLT PLAN WHEN THE DEST HAS AN OPERATING CTL TWR, THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS WERE SOP FOR US. HOWEVER, THE ARR TO LRD WAS TOO HIGH, TOO UNCOORDINATED (ARTCC CTLR/TWR) AND A MUCH TOO LATE HDOF TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SAFE, ORDERLY SEQUENCING OF ARRIVING ACFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.