 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Small aircraft aircraft on final for runway 29 at prc had near midair collision with small aircraft in traffic pattern.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 162307 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199011 |
| Day | Thu |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : prc |
| State Reference | AZ |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 5600 msl bound upper : 5600 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : prc |
| Operator | general aviation : instructional |
| Make Model Name | Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Flight Plan | None |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Operator | general aviation : personal |
| Make Model Name | Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear |
| Flight Phase | other |
| Flight Plan | None |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | observation : company check pilot oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : commercial |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 2965 flight time type : 220 |
| ASRS Report | 162307 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot instruction : trainee |
| Qualification | pilot : commercial |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : nmac |
| Independent Detector | other controllera other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : took evasive action none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | Other |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 300 vertical : 300 |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
Our aircraft was in the pattern doing touch and go lndgs. The pattern was busy at the time. We were on final approach when we observed an small aircraft Y aircraft heading towards us at about our 11 O'clock position, heading straight for our aircraft. My student (a flight instrument candidate taking a final phase check flying from the right seat) and I noticed this aircraft at about the same time. I and my student pushed the controls forward to take evasive action. The tower did call the traffic to us afterwards, and I made no mistake about acknowledging its presence. We monitored traffic on the frequency and it was apparent the tower was having trouble working with this aircraft. A contributing factor is the tremendous continual traffic congestion at the airport and high student volume. Another contributing factor might be the attitude among many pilots who fly at our airport. Some feel students have no right to use it, while others have the idea that they own the field and can barrel into the pattern as they please, west/O regard for the traffic that is already there. An additional problem might be the inexperience of the controllers in the tower, though they did an excellent job handling the congestion this date. One other factor could be the disregard and lack of appreciation many pilots have for traffic pattern operations.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: SMA ACFT ON FINAL FOR RWY 29 AT PRC HAD NMAC WITH SMA IN TRAFFIC PATTERN.
Narrative: OUR ACFT WAS IN THE PATTERN DOING TOUCH AND GO LNDGS. THE PATTERN WAS BUSY AT THE TIME. WE WERE ON FINAL APCH WHEN WE OBSERVED AN SMA Y ACFT HDG TOWARDS US AT ABOUT OUR 11 O'CLOCK POS, HDG STRAIGHT FOR OUR ACFT. MY STUDENT (A FLT INSTR CANDIDATE TAKING A FINAL PHASE CHK FLYING FROM THE R SEAT) AND I NOTICED THIS ACFT AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. I AND MY STUDENT PUSHED THE CTLS FORWARD TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION. THE TWR DID CALL THE TFC TO US AFTERWARDS, AND I MADE NO MISTAKE ABOUT ACKNOWLEDGING ITS PRESENCE. WE MONITORED TFC ON THE FREQ AND IT WAS APPARENT THE TWR WAS HAVING TROUBLE WORKING WITH THIS ACFT. A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IS THE TREMENDOUS CONTINUAL TFC CONGESTION AT THE ARPT AND HIGH STUDENT VOLUME. ANOTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTOR MIGHT BE THE ATTITUDE AMONG MANY PLTS WHO FLY AT OUR ARPT. SOME FEEL STUDENTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO USE IT, WHILE OTHERS HAVE THE IDEA THAT THEY OWN THE FIELD AND CAN BARREL INTO THE PATTERN AS THEY PLEASE, W/O REGARD FOR THE TFC THAT IS ALREADY THERE. AN ADDITIONAL PROB MIGHT BE THE INEXPERIENCE OF THE CTLRS IN THE TWR, THOUGH THEY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB HANDLING THE CONGESTION THIS DATE. ONE OTHER FACTOR COULD BE THE DISREGARD AND LACK OF APPRECIATION MANY PLTS HAVE FOR TFC PATTERN OPS.
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.