 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
C152 student, with instructor, aborted takeoff at non tower airport to avoid an agricultural aircraft taking off from the opposite end of the runway.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 542772 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200204 |
| Day | Mon |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : gtr.airport |
| State Reference | MS |
| Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | general aviation : instructional |
| Make Model Name | Cessna 152 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | ground : takeoff roll |
| Flight Plan | None |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Experimental |
| Operating Under FAR Part | other : 137 |
| Flight Phase | ground : takeoff roll |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | instruction : instructor |
| Qualification | pilot : cfi |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 50 flight time total : 800 flight time type : 400 |
| ASRS Report | 542772 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | instruction : trainee |
| Qualification | pilot : student |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : ground less severe other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : took evasive action |
| Consequence | Other |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 1500 vertical : 50 |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Airspace Structure Airport Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Narrative:
A student and myself were going up to practice touch-and-go's in the pattern. The wind and traffic over the previous few hours favored runway 18, although an air carrier had recently taken off runway 36. We were #2 behind a baron that just took off. After the baron was clear, we made a radio call and proceeded to take off. 1500 ft down the runway, my student aborted the takeoff and veered to the right because he saw an agricultural operator taking off in the opposite direction. After missing the agricultural operator, we proceeded to take off. We verified our radios by communicating with the other traffic and attempted to contact the agricultural operator, but we could not reach him. After landing, the agricultural operator approached to talk about the incident. He said that he did make a radio call before he took off. He also said that he was using a handheld radio. At gtr, traffic at the north end of the runway cannot see traffic at the south end of the runway due to higher elevation at the middle of the field. The agricultural operator's facilities are at the south end of the runway, so he usually takes off to the north because it is most convenient for him. The commercial airliners take off to the north because that is the direction they are heading. In my opinion, the combination of the visual obstructions, coupled with the use of an apparently underpowered handheld radio by the agricultural operator, combined to make a potentially deadly situation. Although the agricultural operator didn't break any regulations, following FAA recommended procedures would have averted this situation. Both the commercial airliner and the agricultural operator should have used the active runway whether it was most convenient for them or not. In addition, it is likely that gtr is getting too busy to remain an uncontrolled airport. A control tower would have also averted this situation.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: C152 STUDENT, WITH INSTRUCTOR, ABORTED TKOF AT NON TWR ARPT TO AVOID AN AGRICULTURAL ACFT TAKING OFF FROM THE OPPOSITE END OF THE RWY.
Narrative: A STUDENT AND MYSELF WERE GOING UP TO PRACTICE TOUCH-AND-GO'S IN THE PATTERN. THE WIND AND TFC OVER THE PREVIOUS FEW HRS FAVORED RWY 18, ALTHOUGH AN ACR HAD RECENTLY TAKEN OFF RWY 36. WE WERE #2 BEHIND A BARON THAT JUST TOOK OFF. AFTER THE BARON WAS CLR, WE MADE A RADIO CALL AND PROCEEDED TO TAKE OFF. 1500 FT DOWN THE RWY, MY STUDENT ABORTED THE TKOF AND VEERED TO THE R BECAUSE HE SAW AN AGRICULTURAL OPERATOR TAKING OFF IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. AFTER MISSING THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATOR, WE PROCEEDED TO TAKE OFF. WE VERIFIED OUR RADIOS BY COMMUNICATING WITH THE OTHER TFC AND ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATOR, BUT WE COULD NOT REACH HIM. AFTER LNDG, THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATOR APCHED TO TALK ABOUT THE INCIDENT. HE SAID THAT HE DID MAKE A RADIO CALL BEFORE HE TOOK OFF. HE ALSO SAID THAT HE WAS USING A HANDHELD RADIO. AT GTR, TFC AT THE N END OF THE RWY CANNOT SEE TFC AT THE S END OF THE RWY DUE TO HIGHER ELEVATION AT THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD. THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATOR'S FACILITIES ARE AT THE S END OF THE RWY, SO HE USUALLY TAKES OFF TO THE N BECAUSE IT IS MOST CONVENIENT FOR HIM. THE COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS TAKE OFF TO THE N BECAUSE THAT IS THE DIRECTION THEY ARE HEADING. IN MY OPINION, THE COMBINATION OF THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTIONS, COUPLED WITH THE USE OF AN APPARENTLY UNDERPOWERED HANDHELD RADIO BY THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATOR, COMBINED TO MAKE A POTENTIALLY DEADLY SIT. ALTHOUGH THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATOR DIDN'T BREAK ANY REGS, FOLLOWING FAA RECOMMENDED PROCS WOULD HAVE AVERTED THIS SIT. BOTH THE COMMERCIAL AIRLINER AND THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATOR SHOULD HAVE USED THE ACTIVE RWY WHETHER IT WAS MOST CONVENIENT FOR THEM OR NOT. IN ADDITION, IT IS LIKELY THAT GTR IS GETTING TOO BUSY TO REMAIN AN UNCTLED ARPT. A CTL TWR WOULD HAVE ALSO AVERTED THIS SIT.
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.