 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
An early turn to base leg at sna, ca, produces a traffic conflict with an aircraft established on final approach.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 486830 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200009 |
| Day | Sat |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : sna.airport |
| State Reference | CA |
| Altitude | msl single value : 1100 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Dusk |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : sct.tracon tower : sna.tower |
| Operator | general aviation : personal |
| Make Model Name | Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Navigation In Use | other |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : traffic pattern |
| Flight Plan | None |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : sna.tower |
| Operator | general aviation : personal |
| Make Model Name | Cessna Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : traffic pattern |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot |
| Qualification | pilot : private |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 52 flight time total : 176 flight time type : 115 |
| ASRS Report | 486830 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : local |
| Qualification | controller : radar |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | other controllerb |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance controller : issued advisory |
| Miss Distance | vertical : 700 |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance Environmental Factor |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
On approach to sna from the northwest, I was handed off from socal approach to sna tower. After checking in with tower, I was instructed to enter a right downwind for runway 19R, which I did. About 1 min later, tower said that 'aircraft X is following a twin cessna on 2 mi final, cleared to land runway 19R #2 after the twin.' I mistook this transmission to mean that the twin was past me, and that I should turn base. After I started a turn to base, tower called and said that I was supposed to be on a downwind, and that I should turn left. As I was turning back to the downwind course (010 degrees). I had visual contact with the twin cessna on final for runway 19R, which was about 700 ft below me. The twin pilot indicated that he also had me in sight. I was resequenced and landed uneventfully. I had thought that the tower was indicating that the aircraft on final was not a factor. What I should have done is either visually verify that the aircraft was past me, or ask the tower to confirm that the aircraft was past me, and no factor. I have discussed the practices at sna with a local instructor, and believe that I have a better understanding of pattern operations.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN EARLY TURN TO BASE LEG AT SNA, CA, PRODUCES A TFC CONFLICT WITH AN ACFT ESTABLISHED ON FINAL APCH.
Narrative: ON APCH TO SNA FROM THE NW, I WAS HANDED OFF FROM SOCAL APCH TO SNA TWR. AFTER CHKING IN WITH TWR, I WAS INSTRUCTED TO ENTER A R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 19R, WHICH I DID. ABOUT 1 MIN LATER, TWR SAID THAT 'ACFT X IS FOLLOWING A TWIN CESSNA ON 2 MI FINAL, CLRED TO LAND RWY 19R #2 AFTER THE TWIN.' I MISTOOK THIS XMISSION TO MEAN THAT THE TWIN WAS PAST ME, AND THAT I SHOULD TURN BASE. AFTER I STARTED A TURN TO BASE, TWR CALLED AND SAID THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON A DOWNWIND, AND THAT I SHOULD TURN L. AS I WAS TURNING BACK TO THE DOWNWIND COURSE (010 DEGS). I HAD VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE TWIN CESSNA ON FINAL FOR RWY 19R, WHICH WAS ABOUT 700 FT BELOW ME. THE TWIN PLT INDICATED THAT HE ALSO HAD ME IN SIGHT. I WAS RESEQUENCED AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. I HAD THOUGHT THAT THE TWR WAS INDICATING THAT THE ACFT ON FINAL WAS NOT A FACTOR. WHAT I SHOULD HAVE DONE IS EITHER VISUALLY VERIFY THAT THE ACFT WAS PAST ME, OR ASK THE TWR TO CONFIRM THAT THE ACFT WAS PAST ME, AND NO FACTOR. I HAVE DISCUSSED THE PRACTICES AT SNA WITH A LCL INSTRUCTOR, AND BELIEVE THAT I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF 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.