Narrative:

On this hazy midsummer afternoon, I was heading VFR to the oshkosh fly-in and decided to stop in chicago to see some friends. Although I rarely file a flight plan when flying VFR, I try to stay in constant contact with ATC for TA's, and I was talking to chicago approach as I neared chicago from the southeast. They vectored me around and between local airports (gary, lansing) and stayed with me until I had chicago meigs field in sight. At that point I was already within the meigs air traffic area, and when they approved my frequency change to the tower, I called the tower immediately. The field was not busy -- there was only 1 other aircraft in the air traffic area, an small transport Y, on the ground taxiing to the active runway 18. Nonetheless, the tower controller did not respond to my first 3 or 4 calls. When she finally did, I recognized her voice from the ATIS, which I had had a lot of trouble understanding because of her poor diction and because she had run through the unchanged NOTAMS and other advisory information very quickly. At this point, I committed an error. On my initial call, I told her I was 5 mi southwest of the field, when in fact, I was 5 mi southeast of the field. She told me to enter a diagonal downwind over midfield for runway 18. I couldn't' understand why she had done that and responded that I was set up for a normal left downwind for 18. She impatiently explained that there was no pattern west of the field (because of downtown chicago). At that point, I realized what I had said and told her that I was, in fact, southeast of the field. She then told me to enter a left downwind for 18. Simultaneously, she cleared the small transport Y for takeoff, I don't recall her mentioning me to him. Nonetheless, I heard her instructions to him, and I would assume he heard her instructions to me. Despite that, he started his takeoff roll, lifted off and made a left turn for a normal crosswind climb out. Unfortunately, the timing was such that he and I would have both passed through the southeast corner of the pattern (where the crosswind meets the downwind) at the same time and altitude. I watched in disbelief as he took off, turned towards me, and climbed to my altitude. I don't know if he ever saw me, but I dove to the right and avoided him. I was little shaken up, but none of the 3 of us said anything at the time. This is the closest have ever come to a midair collision, and I have no desire to get any closer. I feel that the incident was primarily the controller's fault, but some other factors played supporting roles, and some of them are correctable. First of all, when an ATIS recording includes some repetitive information about a non standard pattern, a closed runway, or an obstacle, that portion of the recording should be recorded once clearly, then edited in to each update. It is unreasonable to expect the controller to repeat the same few sentences clearly every hour for months. Second, although we are all aware of the burdensome workload at some ATC facilities, the opposite problem receives too little attention, namely that, when too little is happening, ATC service also degrades noticeably. The controllers wander away from the desk, comfortable under the assumption that if there are only 2 planes in an air traffic area that normally handles 20, those 2 will avoid each other. That's just not true. I don't know if meigs tower has radar, but I doubt she looked at it if it does, since she would have known I was southeast and would have seen the potential collision. Third, a close reading of the regulations (far 91.129) seems to indicate that it is my duty to remain outside the air traffic area until I have established 2-WAY contact with the tower. While I understand the intent of this regulation, it doesn't conform to practice at all, since the approach controllers usually keep you until you are into or close to the pattern. Does my 2-WAY contact with an approach controller suffice as the contact with tower? If so, the regulation needs to be amended to make this clear. If not, then should I advise the approach controller that I need to leave his frequency to contact tower? That makes no sense, since one purpose of approach control is to save the tower's workload. Even more impractical would be my circling beyond the air traffic area until I have establishedcontact with the tower.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: VFR SMA HAS NMAC WITH VFR SMT CLBING OFF CGX ARPT AND AT THE EDGE OF THE ATA.

Narrative: ON THIS HAZY MIDSUMMER AFTERNOON, I WAS HDG VFR TO THE OSHKOSH FLY-IN AND DECIDED TO STOP IN CHICAGO TO SEE SOME FRIENDS. ALTHOUGH I RARELY FILE A FLT PLAN WHEN FLYING VFR, I TRY TO STAY IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH ATC FOR TA'S, AND I WAS TALKING TO CHICAGO APCH AS I NEARED CHICAGO FROM THE SE. THEY VECTORED ME AROUND AND BTWN LCL ARPTS (GARY, LANSING) AND STAYED WITH ME UNTIL I HAD CHICAGO MEIGS FIELD IN SIGHT. AT THAT POINT I WAS ALREADY WITHIN THE MEIGS ATA, AND WHEN THEY APPROVED MY FREQ CHANGE TO THE TWR, I CALLED THE TWR IMMEDIATELY. THE FIELD WAS NOT BUSY -- THERE WAS ONLY 1 OTHER ACFT IN THE ATA, AN SMT Y, ON THE GND TAXIING TO THE ACTIVE RWY 18. NONETHELESS, THE TWR CTLR DID NOT RESPOND TO MY FIRST 3 OR 4 CALLS. WHEN SHE FINALLY DID, I RECOGNIZED HER VOICE FROM THE ATIS, WHICH I HAD HAD A LOT OF TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE OF HER POOR DICTION AND BECAUSE SHE HAD RUN THROUGH THE UNCHANGED NOTAMS AND OTHER ADVISORY INFO VERY QUICKLY. AT THIS POINT, I COMMITTED AN ERROR. ON MY INITIAL CALL, I TOLD HER I WAS 5 MI SW OF THE FIELD, WHEN IN FACT, I WAS 5 MI SE OF THE FIELD. SHE TOLD ME TO ENTER A DIAGONAL DOWNWIND OVER MIDFIELD FOR RWY 18. I COULDN'T' UNDERSTAND WHY SHE HAD DONE THAT AND RESPONDED THAT I WAS SET UP FOR A NORMAL L DOWNWIND FOR 18. SHE IMPATIENTLY EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS NO PATTERN W OF THE FIELD (BECAUSE OF DOWNTOWN CHICAGO). AT THAT POINT, I REALIZED WHAT I HAD SAID AND TOLD HER THAT I WAS, IN FACT, SE OF THE FIELD. SHE THEN TOLD ME TO ENTER A L DOWNWIND FOR 18. SIMULTANEOUSLY, SHE CLRED THE SMT Y FOR TKOF, I DON'T RECALL HER MENTIONING ME TO HIM. NONETHELESS, I HEARD HER INSTRUCTIONS TO HIM, AND I WOULD ASSUME HE HEARD HER INSTRUCTIONS TO ME. DESPITE THAT, HE STARTED HIS TKOF ROLL, LIFTED OFF AND MADE A L TURN FOR A NORMAL XWIND CLBOUT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE TIMING WAS SUCH THAT HE AND I WOULD HAVE BOTH PASSED THROUGH THE SE CORNER OF THE PATTERN (WHERE THE XWIND MEETS THE DOWNWIND) AT THE SAME TIME AND ALT. I WATCHED IN DISBELIEF AS HE TOOK OFF, TURNED TOWARDS ME, AND CLBED TO MY ALT. I DON'T KNOW IF HE EVER SAW ME, BUT I DOVE TO THE R AND AVOIDED HIM. I WAS LITTLE SHAKEN UP, BUT NONE OF THE 3 OF US SAID ANYTHING AT THE TIME. THIS IS THE CLOSEST HAVE EVER COME TO A MIDAIR COLLISION, AND I HAVE NO DESIRE TO GET ANY CLOSER. I FEEL THAT THE INCIDENT WAS PRIMARILY THE CTLR'S FAULT, BUT SOME OTHER FACTORS PLAYED SUPPORTING ROLES, AND SOME OF THEM ARE CORRECTABLE. FIRST OF ALL, WHEN AN ATIS RECORDING INCLUDES SOME REPETITIVE INFO ABOUT A NON STANDARD PATTERN, A CLOSED RWY, OR AN OBSTACLE, THAT PORTION OF THE RECORDING SHOULD BE RECORDED ONCE CLRLY, THEN EDITED IN TO EACH UPDATE. IT IS UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT THE CTLR TO REPEAT THE SAME FEW SENTENCES CLRLY EVERY HR FOR MONTHS. SECOND, ALTHOUGH WE ARE ALL AWARE OF THE BURDENSOME WORKLOAD AT SOME ATC FACILITIES, THE OPPOSITE PROB RECEIVES TOO LITTLE ATTN, NAMELY THAT, WHEN TOO LITTLE IS HAPPENING, ATC SVC ALSO DEGRADES NOTICEABLY. THE CTLRS WANDER AWAY FROM THE DESK, COMFORTABLE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF THERE ARE ONLY 2 PLANES IN AN ATA THAT NORMALLY HANDLES 20, THOSE 2 WILL AVOID EACH OTHER. THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE. I DON'T KNOW IF MEIGS TWR HAS RADAR, BUT I DOUBT SHE LOOKED AT IT IF IT DOES, SINCE SHE WOULD HAVE KNOWN I WAS SE AND WOULD HAVE SEEN THE POTENTIAL COLLISION. THIRD, A CLOSE READING OF THE REGS (FAR 91.129) SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT IT IS MY DUTY TO REMAIN OUTSIDE THE ATA UNTIL I HAVE ESTABLISHED 2-WAY CONTACT WITH THE TWR. WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THIS REG, IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO PRACTICE AT ALL, SINCE THE APCH CTLRS USUALLY KEEP YOU UNTIL YOU ARE INTO OR CLOSE TO THE PATTERN. DOES MY 2-WAY CONTACT WITH AN APCH CTLR SUFFICE AS THE CONTACT WITH TWR? IF SO, THE REG NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO MAKE THIS CLR. IF NOT, THEN SHOULD I ADVISE THE APCH CTLR THAT I NEED TO LEAVE HIS FREQ TO CONTACT TWR? THAT MAKES NO SENSE, SINCE ONE PURPOSE OF APCH CTL IS TO SAVE THE TWR'S WORKLOAD. EVEN MORE IMPRACTICAL WOULD BE MY CIRCLING BEYOND THE ATA UNTIL I HAVE ESTABLISHEDCONTACT WITH THE TWR.

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.