|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : s36|
|Altitude||msl bound lower : 1600|
msl bound upper : 1600
|Operator||general aviation : personal|
|Make Model Name||Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 91|
|Make Model Name||Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C, 210D|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 91|
|Flight Phase||climbout : takeoff|
|Function||instruction : instructor|
|Qualification||pilot : commercial|
pilot : instrument
pilot : cfi
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 10|
flight time total : 1000
flight time type : 10
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
pilot : private
|Anomaly||conflict : nmac|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||flight crew : took evasive action|
|Miss Distance||horizontal : 300|
vertical : 300
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
The student in the left seat of the aircraft had the only push- to-talk switch. It had been 2 months since his last flight, and he was having trouble with his xmissions. As we entered the downwind, either the other aircraft, a cessna 210, was 'stepped on.' (transmitted over), or did not make a position report. In any case, the other aircraft was not acquired visually by either myself or my student. When we observed the other aircraft, it was 500 ft ahead and to our right, and somewhat below us. Judging by the flight path of the other aircraft, it was probably executing a downwind departure after takeoff. It is possible that the departing aircraft made a transmission on the runway stating his intention to takeoff and depart on the downwind, and both myself and the student did not hear it, due to my giving instruction to the student on the extended '45' to the downwind. The largest contributing factor was my failure to persist in getting the student to stabilize the high performance, multi-engine aircraft well before entering the pattern, this resulted in a great deal of cockpit distraction and communication at a crucial time for traffic awareness and avoidance. If a push-to-talk switch or hand microphone had been available, I would have relieved the student of communication duties on that particular occasion. It is my belief that the pilot of the other aircraft both saw and avoided us, but I cannot be certain. A contributing factor in the student's performance was nervousness or unease at the prospect of landing at this airport, which was somewhat smaller than the airports he had landed this aircraft at previously. The net result was a near midair, a frustrated student and a go around.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: SMA TWIN HAS NMAC WITH SMA IN TFC PATTERN.
Narrative: THE STUDENT IN THE L SEAT OF THE ACFT HAD THE ONLY PUSH- TO-TALK SWITCH. IT HAD BEEN 2 MONTHS SINCE HIS LAST FLT, AND HE WAS HAVING TROUBLE WITH HIS XMISSIONS. AS WE ENTERED THE DOWNWIND, EITHER THE OTHER ACFT, A CESSNA 210, WAS 'STEPPED ON.' (XMITTED OVER), OR DID NOT MAKE A POS RPT. IN ANY CASE, THE OTHER ACFT WAS NOT ACQUIRED VISUALLY BY EITHER MYSELF OR MY STUDENT. WHEN WE OBSERVED THE OTHER ACFT, IT WAS 500 FT AHEAD AND TO OUR R, AND SOMEWHAT BELOW US. JUDGING BY THE FLT PATH OF THE OTHER ACFT, IT WAS PROBABLY EXECUTING A DOWNWIND DEP AFTER TKOF. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE DEPARTING ACFT MADE A XMISSION ON THE RWY STATING HIS INTENTION TO TKOF AND DEPART ON THE DOWNWIND, AND BOTH MYSELF AND THE STUDENT DID NOT HEAR IT, DUE TO MY GIVING INSTRUCTION TO THE STUDENT ON THE EXTENDED '45' TO THE DOWNWIND. THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS MY FAILURE TO PERSIST IN GETTING THE STUDENT TO STABILIZE THE HIGH PERFORMANCE, MULTI-ENG ACFT WELL BEFORE ENTERING THE PATTERN, THIS RESULTED IN A GREAT DEAL OF COCKPIT DISTR AND COM AT A CRUCIAL TIME FOR TFC AWARENESS AND AVOIDANCE. IF A PUSH-TO-TALK SWITCH OR HAND MICROPHONE HAD BEEN AVAILABLE, I WOULD HAVE RELIEVED THE STUDENT OF COM DUTIES ON THAT PARTICULAR OCCASION. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT BOTH SAW AND AVOIDED US, BUT I CANNOT BE CERTAIN. A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN THE STUDENT'S PERFORMANCE WAS NERVOUSNESS OR UNEASE AT THE PROSPECT OF LNDG AT THIS ARPT, WHICH WAS SOMEWHAT SMALLER THAN THE ARPTS HE HAD LANDED THIS ACFT AT PREVIOUSLY. THE NET RESULT WAS A NEAR MIDAIR, A FRUSTRATED STUDENT AND A GAR.
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.