Narrative:

Small aircraft X was on a practice approach runway 14. Military helicopter Y was transitioning the air traffic area at 1000'. Small aircraft Z was doing touch and goes. Military Y wanted to cross the final approach about 1 1/2 mi out. Small aircraft X was told to report a 2 mi final. Z appeared to be well ahead of X based on X's odors report which is a 6 mi final fix, and Z was cleared for touch and go. Helicopter Y was instructed to cross midfield to avoid approach and pattern traffic. He failed to do this because he said he had traffic in sight. X, at about the same time, failed to report a 2 mi final and was in conflict with Z. Z was turned back to downwind to avoid X, and was then traffic for military Y. Had helicopter Y turned overhead as instructed and had small aircraft X reported a 2 mi final, this report would not be necessary.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TWO ACFT CONFLICTS IN ATA. SMA CLOSE PROX TO ANOTHER SMA, AND THEN SMA IN CLOSE PROX WITH MIL HELICOPTER. PLT DEVIATION.

Narrative: SMA X WAS ON A PRACTICE APCH RWY 14. MIL HELI Y WAS TRANSITIONING THE ATA AT 1000'. SMA Z WAS DOING TOUCH AND GOES. MIL Y WANTED TO CROSS THE FINAL APCH ABOUT 1 1/2 MI OUT. SMA X WAS TOLD TO RPT A 2 MI FINAL. Z APPEARED TO BE WELL AHEAD OF X BASED ON X'S ODORS RPT WHICH IS A 6 MI FINAL FIX, AND Z WAS CLRED FOR TOUCH AND GO. HELI Y WAS INSTRUCTED TO CROSS MIDFIELD TO AVOID APCH AND PATTERN TFC. HE FAILED TO DO THIS BECAUSE HE SAID HE HAD TFC IN SIGHT. X, AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, FAILED TO RPT A 2 MI FINAL AND WAS IN CONFLICT WITH Z. Z WAS TURNED BACK TO DOWNWIND TO AVOID X, AND WAS THEN TFC FOR MIL Y. HAD HELI Y TURNED OVERHEAD AS INSTRUCTED AND HAD SMA X RPTED A 2 MI FINAL, THIS RPT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY.

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.