Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 2.6; Flight Crew Total 2238.3; Flight Crew Type 1502.7
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
The C182 pilot called RNO TWR 13 miles south.  (This airman was disorientated on his position as well.)  I instructed the aircraft to remain outside RNO Class Charlie Airspace and to contact NorCal Approach on frequency 119.2.  The pilot read back the information in a questioning manner and I reiterated the frequency 119.2.  Several minutes later I observed an aircraft 7 northwest of RNO which initially appeared to be a transitioning aircraft. This aircraft was in fact the C182 and I will continue to refer to him as such.  A PA28 was inbound to RNO from the northeast on a straight in to RWY 16L.  There were several other arrivals and departures at this period of time also.  I had placed an air carrier in position on 16R pending the exiting of another aircraft.  The PA28 had been cleared to land RWY 16L.  I observed that the C182 was now descending and tracking toward the PA28.  I began issuing traffic to the PA28; and reaching out to the then unknown C182. The C182's track appeared to be turning into final and still descending; a NORDO aircraft.  I issued a traffic alert to the PA28.  The C182 called inbound on final RWY 16L.  I issued an immediate left turn to the PA28.  I had missed the call sign of the C182 and issued a blind transmission to the Cessna 1 mile final RWY 16L cleared to land.  I issued the airliner an immediate takeoff clearance as I could not visually acquire the C182 in the ground clutter (my CIC and other controller assisting in the cab had visually acquired the aircraft and were issuing light gun signals as well).  The C182 landed RWY 16L at which time when asked if he could hear my transmission; he replied that he did; and was issued instructions to exit the RWY and contact Ground Control.  Pilot was further confused on taxi instructions and was issued the Brasher statement.  These two aircraft closest proximity was estimated at less than a 1/2 mile same altitude.  Further review of information via LiveATC; the C182 attempted to contact Approach Control (NCT) twice and was told to standby.  The aircraft on a third attempt reported 7 miles out at which time he was given a squawk code.  He did not squawk the correct code.  NCT queried his code; and his position; finally identifying the aircraft on the wrong code 3 miles north of RNO; told him he was on the wrong code and radar identified him and told him to contact RNO TWR.NCT should have turned this aircraft out of the traffic pattern to the right and issued traffic instead of just dumping on the Tower.  I was issuing traffic; and traffic alerts followed by an immediate turn; so NCT should have been able to see the same traffic I did.  Also; a further remain outside class Charlie airspace instruction could have helped.  Ultimately it appears that if NCT Sectors had been decombined; the workload would have been less and a better service could have been provided.  I don't normally like to say 'they should have done a better job;' but in this case I do feel that this situation could have been mitigated earlier.  As for myself; I don't think I could have reacted any different or sooner with an unknown NORDO aircraft.  For note; we have VFR aircraft transition this area regularly without ATC communication; so initially there was no reason to suspect an inbound aircraft.
Contacted Approach Control Reno; NV after listening to information Bravo on ATIS. Reply was 'standby' and Controller seemingly got N number incorrect. I began to circle 12 NM north northwest to remain clear of traffic. Again called Approach Control after 5 minutes; no response; then 3rd call; 'standby'. Fourth call instructed to approach Runway 16L Reno for straight in; so I flew east and south to line up with runway. Finally (very late) Approach Control advised to contact Tower which I did. I was 'cleared to land' by a controller about 1/2 mile out. On landing I was advised to call the Tower which I did after closing my flight plan. My landing at Reno was necessitated by a shortage of fuel and the 15 minutes of circling  waiting for Approach Control response and instructions was a detriment to the situation.I was surprised to be told that I was in possible violation without a clearance to land when I and my two passengers clearly heard 'cleared to land'. Moreover; I initially remained clear of Reno's traffic until advised by Approach Control with instructions to proceeded to line up for Runway 16L. I contacted Tower when told to by Approach Control and they then said 'cleared to land.'Another issue was the transponder code that Approach Control said they were receiving. I was told to squawk XXXX (as I recall) but I was told by Approach Control that I was squawking code YXXX. I double checked and the transponder was clearly and positively set on XXXX. But the 'X' position on my transponder was reading 'Y' at Approach Control. The setting was verified with the Controller that I had the requested code set; as I reported to the Controller.I believe that I complied with all procedures as appropriate by following the required tasks; I.E.:1) Read ATIS2) Contacted Approach Control and after being ignored for a time reported possession of ATIS Bravo.3) Complied with instructions to proceed.4) Contacted Tower after a very late handoff.5) Landed after being cleared.
A RNO Tower Controller and a C182 pilot each present their version of an uncoordinated entry into the Class C airspace resulting in an airborne conflict.