Narrative:

Wed, feb/xx/90, student pilot training flight at detroit city airport (det), VFR WX conditions, small aircraft X was cleared for takeoff on runway 25 with instructions to 'fly right traffic'. While on crosswind leg we heard the tower advise air carrier Y that there was a dog on the airport and 'be prepared to go around'. The tower thereafter instructed us to 'turn downwind' after the question of whether we should extend the upwind leg in the event air carrier Y has to go around. At approximately XX00 pm local time, air carrier Y was instructed to 'go around'. Small aircraft X was at pattern altitude in a right turn to downwind when air carrier Y initiated its climb out and proceeded to make a left turn on crosswind. No instructions were given either aircraft to warn the pilots of converging flight paths and evasive action had to be taken by us to avoid air carrier Y. Air carrier Y reported a 'near miss' and continued in left pattern to land on runway 33 while we continued in right pattern for runway 25 and was further instructed to 'keep your speed up' that there was some traffic ahead landing on runway 33. Immediately after the incident the tower operator (female) was upset with us and criticized us for being in the way of the airliner. All aircraft landed without further incident and operations continued on both runways. Instructions should have been given to both aircraft immediately after the 'go around' instructions were given, also, conflicting patterns such as right traffic for runway 25 and left traffic for runway 33 are dangerous during high density traffic conditions. Safety of operation should be the prime concern and confusion as to the course of action especially for student pilots can contribute to a midair collision. PIC authority had to be taken to avoid a collision even though both aircraft were in the right.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR ON MISSED APCH HAS CONFLICT WITH AN SMA IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN.

Narrative: WED, FEB/XX/90, STUDENT PLT TRAINING FLT AT DETROIT CITY ARPT (DET), VFR WX CONDITIONS, SMA X WAS CLRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 25 WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO 'FLY RIGHT TFC'. WHILE ON XWIND LEG WE HEARD THE TWR ADVISE ACR Y THAT THERE WAS A DOG ON THE ARPT AND 'BE PREPARED TO GO AROUND'. THE TWR THEREAFTER INSTRUCTED US TO 'TURN DOWNWIND' AFTER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER WE SHOULD EXTEND THE UPWIND LEG IN THE EVENT ACR Y HAS TO GO AROUND. AT APPROX XX00 PM LCL TIME, ACR Y WAS INSTRUCTED TO 'GO AROUND'. SMA X WAS AT PATTERN ALT IN A RIGHT TURN TO DOWNWIND WHEN ACR Y INITIATED ITS CLIMB OUT AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ON XWIND. NO INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN EITHER ACFT TO WARN THE PLTS OF CONVERGING FLT PATHS AND EVASIVE ACTION HAD TO BE TAKEN BY US TO AVOID ACR Y. ACR Y REPORTED A 'NEAR MISS' AND CONTINUED IN LEFT PATTERN TO LAND ON RWY 33 WHILE WE CONTINUED IN RIGHT PATTERN FOR RWY 25 AND WAS FURTHER INSTRUCTED TO 'KEEP YOUR SPEED UP' THAT THERE WAS SOME TFC AHEAD LNDG ON RWY 33. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INCIDENT THE TWR OPERATOR (FEMALE) WAS UPSET WITH US AND CRITICIZED US FOR BEING IN THE WAY OF THE AIRLINER. ALL ACFT LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT AND OPERATIONS CONTINUED ON BOTH RWYS. INSTRUCTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO BOTH ACFT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE 'GO AROUND' INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN, ALSO, CONFLICTING PATTERNS SUCH AS RIGHT TFC FOR RWY 25 AND LEFT TFC FOR RWY 33 ARE DANGEROUS DURING HIGH DENSITY TFC CONDITIONS. SAFETY OF OPERATION SHOULD BE THE PRIME CONCERN AND CONFUSION AS TO THE COURSE OF ACTION ESPECIALLY FOR STUDENT PLTS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A MIDAIR COLLISION. PIC AUTHORITY HAD TO BE TAKEN TO AVOID A COLLISION EVEN THOUGH BOTH ACFT WERE IN THE RIGHT.

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.