Narrative:

The event took place during a sunday fly-in. During this fly-in there were several, various types of aircraft arriving at an uncontrolled airport. Also, while aircraft were arriving, there were aircraft rides going on for people who drove to the breakfast. Traffic on this day was mainly landing and departing runway 21. The event described in this report occurred when an experimental aircraft small aircraft X flew the downwind, base and final legs of the traffic pattern. While this small, deceptively fast aircraft was on base leg, getting ready to turn final, one of the aircraft giving aircraft rides (small aircraft Y) rolled out onto the runway 21 for departure. As small aircraft Y entered the runway, small aircraft X turned final. As the small aircraft Y pilot pushed the throttle forward, the small aircraft X pilot continued to fly his normal, fast final approach. In the next few seconds as small aircraft Y was departing, small aircraft X caught up to the departing small aircraft Y and the experimental small aircraft X was forced to go around. The situation ended as small aircraft X passed the departing small aircraft Y (both at 200' AGL) on the right, yelling obscenities. In my opinion, this potentially dangerous situation was the fault of both pilots. The small aircraft Y pilot was at fault for misjudging the speed and distance of the experimental turning final approach. The experimental pilot was at fault for flying such a fast (possibly non standard) landing pattern and making the go around situation so close. After being involved in this event, it is my proposal that fast, hard to see (and judge) experimental aircraft should be limited to controled airports where safety is enhanced by radar and better communication. In addition, on the next landing attempt the small aircraft X pilot ground-looped his aircraft, causing no damage.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC BETWEEN SIGHTSEEING SMA Y AND EXPERIEMENTAL SMA X AT DVN.

Narrative: THE EVENT TOOK PLACE DURING A SUNDAY FLY-IN. DURING THIS FLY-IN THERE WERE SEVERAL, VARIOUS TYPES OF ACFT ARRIVING AT AN UNCONTROLLED ARPT. ALSO, WHILE ACFT WERE ARRIVING, THERE WERE ACFT RIDES GOING ON FOR PEOPLE WHO DROVE TO THE BREAKFAST. TFC ON THIS DAY WAS MAINLY LNDG AND DEPARTING RWY 21. THE EVENT DESCRIBED IN THIS RPT OCCURRED WHEN AN EXPERIMENTAL ACFT SMA X FLEW THE DOWNWIND, BASE AND FINAL LEGS OF THE TFC PATTERN. WHILE THIS SMALL, DECEPTIVELY FAST ACFT WAS ON BASE LEG, GETTING READY TO TURN FINAL, ONE OF THE ACFT GIVING ACFT RIDES (SMA Y) ROLLED OUT ONTO THE RWY 21 FOR DEP. AS SMA Y ENTERED THE RWY, SMA X TURNED FINAL. AS THE SMA Y PLT PUSHED THE THROTTLE FORWARD, THE SMA X PLT CONTINUED TO FLY HIS NORMAL, FAST FINAL APCH. IN THE NEXT FEW SECS AS SMA Y WAS DEPARTING, SMA X CAUGHT UP TO THE DEPARTING SMA Y AND THE EXPERIMENTAL SMA X WAS FORCED TO GO AROUND. THE SITUATION ENDED AS SMA X PASSED THE DEPARTING SMA Y (BOTH AT 200' AGL) ON THE RIGHT, YELLING OBSCENITIES. IN MY OPINION, THIS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION WAS THE FAULT OF BOTH PLTS. THE SMA Y PLT WAS AT FAULT FOR MISJUDGING THE SPD AND DISTANCE OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TURNING FINAL APCH. THE EXPERIMENTAL PLT WAS AT FAULT FOR FLYING SUCH A FAST (POSSIBLY NON STANDARD) LNDG PATTERN AND MAKING THE GAR SITUATION SO CLOSE. AFTER BEING INVOLVED IN THIS EVENT, IT IS MY PROPOSAL THAT FAST, HARD TO SEE (AND JUDGE) EXPERIMENTAL ACFT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO CTLED ARPTS WHERE SAFETY IS ENHANCED BY RADAR AND BETTER COM. IN ADDITION, ON THE NEXT LNDG ATTEMPT THE SMA X PLT GND-LOOPED HIS ACFT, CAUSING NO DAMAGE.

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.