Narrative:

Another pilot and I departed 00V bnd for apa. I was PIC and the nature of the flight was for pleasure. From 00V I cruised at 8500', until about 1 mi southwest of franktown. There I descended to 7500'. During my descent to 7500', I obtained information from the apa ATIS. After setting my altimeter, I started to call the centennial tower and report my position with information. At this time, I was approximately 15 mi from apa. There was so much radio traffic that I had not been acknowledged by the tower. I continued to contact the tower with the position and information. The tower was still not acknowledging me. After reporting that I was 12 mi southeast, the tower said for everyone to stop transmitting and said aircraft 12 mi southeast report abeam the tower. When I was abeam the tower I called the tower and was told 'aircraft X, this is your first transmission with the tower.' next I was told to report my base leg over parker road, and there there was traffic ahead of me. After reporting my base, I was told to report my base leg over cherry creek reservoir, after final report when over bellview. I did comply with all directions from the tower as given. When on the ground, I was asked to call the tower. When I called, I was asked why I hadn't called sooner, and told them that I was the aircraft 12 mi southeast of the airport. Next the supervisor of the tower told me that I had been involved with a near midair collision. I politely told him that neither I nor the other pilot felt that we were ever in any danger from another aircraft in our immediate vicinity. However, the supervisor said he was compelled to file a report. (I answered the questions he asked.) he went on to say the aircraft was going to land on runway 28, however when I was about 1/2 mi south of runway 28, I recall an small aircraft type of aircraft departing 28 about 500' above the ground and turning southward. At this point, I was level at 7000' with my landing gear up and landing lights on for better visibility. Since I nor the other pilot had seen another aircraft in our immediate vicinity (especially reported at 10'), I did not take any evasive actions. I cannot say that I was involved in a near miss with another aircraft. What I am concerned about is the fact that the tower was so busy that reporting position was at best difficult, and 'aircraft 12 mi southeast report abeam tower' does not constitute a positive acknowledgement. However, I did comply with their directive. I feel that this airport (apa) is a bit much at times. For my safety and safety of other pilots, I would recommend a radar service to provide better traffic sep. To conclude, because of radio congestion and traffic load, I may have violated far 91.129. However, 2-WAY radio communications had been established before I entered the air traffic area airspace. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter clarified the geometry of his approach into apa, and says that he never saw any other aircraft and neither the FAA nor the tower supervisor explained exactly where the alleged conflict was supposed to have taken place. Apparently the pilot of the other aircraft reported the incident as an near midair collision, and the only knowledge that the reporter has is that the other pilot was approaching to land runway 28. The reporter flew a left traffic pattern for runway 17L. FAA has contacted reporter and sent him a letter indicating that they are investigating, and inviting him to give his version of events. No official notice of violation has been received as yet. Reporter is familiar with apa from exposure during his flight training. He believes that radio and traffic congestion at that facility can get so bad that it becomes an unsafe airport.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA FLYING INTO APA IS TOLD AFTER LNDG THAT HE HAD AN NMAC WITH ANOTHER SMA WHILE FLYING THE TRAFFIC PATTERN.

Narrative: ANOTHER PLT AND I DEPARTED 00V BND FOR APA. I WAS PIC AND THE NATURE OF THE FLT WAS FOR PLEASURE. FROM 00V I CRUISED AT 8500', UNTIL ABOUT 1 MI SW OF FRANKTOWN. THERE I DSNDED TO 7500'. DURING MY DSCNT TO 7500', I OBTAINED INFO FROM THE APA ATIS. AFTER SETTING MY ALTIMETER, I STARTED TO CALL THE CENTENNIAL TWR AND RPT MY POS WITH INFO. AT THIS TIME, I WAS APPROX 15 MI FROM APA. THERE WAS SO MUCH RADIO TFC THAT I HAD NOT BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE TWR. I CONTINUED TO CONTACT THE TWR WITH THE POS AND INFO. THE TWR WAS STILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGING ME. AFTER RPTING THAT I WAS 12 MI SE, THE TWR SAID FOR EVERYONE TO STOP XMITTING AND SAID ACFT 12 MI SE RPT ABEAM THE TWR. WHEN I WAS ABEAM THE TWR I CALLED THE TWR AND WAS TOLD 'ACFT X, THIS IS YOUR FIRST XMISSION WITH THE TWR.' NEXT I WAS TOLD TO RPT MY BASE LEG OVER PARKER ROAD, AND THERE THERE WAS TFC AHEAD OF ME. AFTER RPTING MY BASE, I WAS TOLD TO RPT MY BASE LEG OVER CHERRY CREEK RESERVOIR, AFTER FINAL RPT WHEN OVER BELLVIEW. I DID COMPLY WITH ALL DIRECTIONS FROM THE TWR AS GIVEN. WHEN ON THE GND, I WAS ASKED TO CALL THE TWR. WHEN I CALLED, I WAS ASKED WHY I HADN'T CALLED SOONER, AND TOLD THEM THAT I WAS THE ACFT 12 MI SE OF THE ARPT. NEXT THE SUPVR OF THE TWR TOLD ME THAT I HAD BEEN INVOLVED WITH A NMAC. I POLITELY TOLD HIM THAT NEITHER I NOR THE OTHER PLT FELT THAT WE WERE EVER IN ANY DANGER FROM ANOTHER ACFT IN OUR IMMEDIATE VICINITY. HOWEVER, THE SUPVR SAID HE WAS COMPELLED TO FILE A RPT. (I ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS HE ASKED.) HE WENT ON TO SAY THE ACFT WAS GOING TO LAND ON RWY 28, HOWEVER WHEN I WAS ABOUT 1/2 MI S OF RWY 28, I RECALL AN SMA TYPE OF ACFT DEPARTING 28 ABOUT 500' ABOVE THE GND AND TURNING SOUTHWARD. AT THIS POINT, I WAS LEVEL AT 7000' WITH MY LNDG GEAR UP AND LNDG LIGHTS ON FOR BETTER VISIBILITY. SINCE I NOR THE OTHER PLT HAD SEEN ANOTHER ACFT IN OUR IMMEDIATE VICINITY (ESPECIALLY RPTED AT 10'), I DID NOT TAKE ANY EVASIVE ACTIONS. I CANNOT SAY THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN A NEAR MISS WITH ANOTHER ACFT. WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT THE TWR WAS SO BUSY THAT RPTING POS WAS AT BEST DIFFICULT, AND 'ACFT 12 MI SE RPT ABEAM TWR' DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A POSITIVE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. HOWEVER, I DID COMPLY WITH THEIR DIRECTIVE. I FEEL THAT THIS ARPT (APA) IS A BIT MUCH AT TIMES. FOR MY SAFETY AND SAFETY OF OTHER PLTS, I WOULD RECOMMEND A RADAR SVC TO PROVIDE BETTER TFC SEP. TO CONCLUDE, BECAUSE OF RADIO CONGESTION AND TFC LOAD, I MAY HAVE VIOLATED FAR 91.129. HOWEVER, 2-WAY RADIO COMS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BEFORE I ENTERED THE ATA AIRSPACE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR CLARIFIED THE GEOMETRY OF HIS APCH INTO APA, AND SAYS THAT HE NEVER SAW ANY OTHER ACFT AND NEITHER THE FAA NOR THE TWR SUPVR EXPLAINED EXACTLY WHERE THE ALLEGED CONFLICT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE. APPARENTLY THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT RPTED THE INCIDENT AS AN NMAC, AND THE ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE RPTR HAS IS THAT THE OTHER PLT WAS APCHING TO LAND RWY 28. THE RPTR FLEW A LEFT TFC PATTERN FOR RWY 17L. FAA HAS CONTACTED RPTR AND SENT HIM A LETTER INDICATING THAT THEY ARE INVESTIGATING, AND INVITING HIM TO GIVE HIS VERSION OF EVENTS. NO OFFICIAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS YET. RPTR IS FAMILIAR WITH APA FROM EXPOSURE DURING HIS FLT TRNING. HE BELIEVES THAT RADIO AND TFC CONGESTION AT THAT FAC CAN GET SO BAD THAT IT BECOMES AN UNSAFE ARPT.

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