Narrative:

I am not writing this report in an effort to gain immunity for myself, but in an effort to point out something unsafe which I have seen quite a few times. I had just taken off from camarillo airport (cma) en route to santa monica (smo). My route of flight took me directly over NAS point merger (ntd). After taking off from cma I called ntd tower to transition their class D airspace. The transition was approved, my altitude verified and everything was proceeding normally. The tower was busy and one of the controllers (there were 2 voices) was obviously in training. The tower pointed out an A-6 on downwind for runway 21 and I was told he would be landing. Shortly after that I heard the instructor controller say something about somebody having an unsafe gear indication and that aircraft was instructed to climb to 2200 ft (I was at 1700 ft) and turn left to overfly the airport. This made me a little more alert as I started looking around. The A-6 I had pointed out to me started a left turn to what looked like a base leg. It was not until he was on a collision course with me that I noticed he was climbing! Most people know an A-6 easily out climbs a cessna 150. I turned about 120 degrees to the right and had the A-6 come within 1000 ft or so. I realize that being VFR I was required to maintain my own separation from the A-6, and I am not suggesting that towers start providing separation to VFR aircraft. However, there are a few contributing factors to this 'incident.' the A-6 was talking to the tower on UHF and I was on VHF. So I had no idea what he was saying as I would have if both of us were on the same frequency. I think controllers need to be conscious of the fact that many pilots rely on situational awareness developed from the radio conversations. When a controller works multiple frequencys, he needs to be aware that he may need to talk a little more to other airplanes since they only get what the controller says. Finally, I believe the controller in the event I have described may have focused more on trying to deal with the A-6's gear problem and forgotten about his duty to the safe and orderly flow of traffic. Controllers may need to be reminded now and then as pilots are to 'fly the airplane first.' controllers should provide for the safe flow of traffic through their airspace. Again, I am aware that this occurrence wasn't the fault of the controller, and that if there was a collision, the fault would have rested with me and the A-6 pilot. I just wanted to point out a safety hazard I see regularly.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT LESSENED BY PLT RESPONSE IN ATA TO MIL PLT'S EXECUTION OF GAR PROC.

Narrative: I AM NOT WRITING THIS RPT IN AN EFFORT TO GAIN IMMUNITY FOR MYSELF, BUT IN AN EFFORT TO POINT OUT SOMETHING UNSAFE WHICH I HAVE SEEN QUITE A FEW TIMES. I HAD JUST TAKEN OFF FROM CAMARILLO ARPT (CMA) ENRTE TO SANTA MONICA (SMO). MY RTE OF FLT TOOK ME DIRECTLY OVER NAS POINT MERGER (NTD). AFTER TAKING OFF FROM CMA I CALLED NTD TWR TO TRANSITION THEIR CLASS D AIRSPACE. THE TRANSITION WAS APPROVED, MY ALT VERIFIED AND EVERYTHING WAS PROCEEDING NORMALLY. THE TWR WAS BUSY AND ONE OF THE CTLRS (THERE WERE 2 VOICES) WAS OBVIOUSLY IN TRAINING. THE TWR POINTED OUT AN A-6 ON DOWNWIND FOR RWY 21 AND I WAS TOLD HE WOULD BE LNDG. SHORTLY AFTER THAT I HEARD THE INSTRUCTOR CTLR SAY SOMETHING ABOUT SOMEBODY HAVING AN UNSAFE GEAR INDICATION AND THAT ACFT WAS INSTRUCTED TO CLB TO 2200 FT (I WAS AT 1700 FT) AND TURN L TO OVERFLY THE ARPT. THIS MADE ME A LITTLE MORE ALERT AS I STARTED LOOKING AROUND. THE A-6 I HAD POINTED OUT TO ME STARTED A L TURN TO WHAT LOOKED LIKE A BASE LEG. IT WAS NOT UNTIL HE WAS ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH ME THAT I NOTICED HE WAS CLBING! MOST PEOPLE KNOW AN A-6 EASILY OUT CLBS A CESSNA 150. I TURNED ABOUT 120 DEGS TO THE R AND HAD THE A-6 COME WITHIN 1000 FT OR SO. I REALIZE THAT BEING VFR I WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN MY OWN SEPARATION FROM THE A-6, AND I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT TWRS START PROVIDING SEPARATION TO VFR ACFT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE A FEW CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THIS 'INCIDENT.' THE A-6 WAS TALKING TO THE TWR ON UHF AND I WAS ON VHF. SO I HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE WAS SAYING AS I WOULD HAVE IF BOTH OF US WERE ON THE SAME FREQ. I THINK CTLRS NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT MANY PLTS RELY ON SITUATIONAL AWARENESS DEVELOPED FROM THE RADIO CONVERSATIONS. WHEN A CTLR WORKS MULTIPLE FREQS, HE NEEDS TO BE AWARE THAT HE MAY NEED TO TALK A LITTLE MORE TO OTHER AIRPLANES SINCE THEY ONLY GET WHAT THE CTLR SAYS. FINALLY, I BELIEVE THE CTLR IN THE EVENT I HAVE DESCRIBED MAY HAVE FOCUSED MORE ON TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE A-6'S GEAR PROB AND FORGOTTEN ABOUT HIS DUTY TO THE SAFE AND ORDERLY FLOW OF TFC. CTLRS MAY NEED TO BE REMINDED NOW AND THEN AS PLTS ARE TO 'FLY THE AIRPLANE FIRST.' CTLRS SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE SAFE FLOW OF TFC THROUGH THEIR AIRSPACE. AGAIN, I AM AWARE THAT THIS OCCURRENCE WASN'T THE FAULT OF THE CTLR, AND THAT IF THERE WAS A COLLISION, THE FAULT WOULD HAVE RESTED WITH ME AND THE A-6 PLT. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT A SAFETY HAZARD I SEE REGULARLY.

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.