Narrative:

Instructing C152 student on traffic patterns operations at gai. Student's first experience of gai. Operating near mgtow in hot VMC; so using short field takeoff technique to maximize altitude during initial climb. Turning right to 340 degrees at 750 ft MSL (200 ft AGL) to conform to gai 32 noise abatement directions. Third takeoff after touch-and-goes. Had previously warned student to lower nose at 900-1000 ft MSL to check for traffic inbound on VOR 14 or GPS 14 approachs from fdk direction; also for traffic joining traffic pattern from northwest on early downwind; or from north on 45-degree join. Some mins earlier; had heard aircraft Y call several mi out on VOR 14 approach. Used that call as example to student of near midair collision risk from aircraft approaching gai from northwest; in opposite direction to runway 32 takeoff traffic. Had listened for further calls from aircraft Y approaching gai; nothing heard. Student was climbing on 340-heading at 900 ft MSL. I saw cessna aircraft over student's head; at 10 O'clock high; approximately 1/4 mi away and descending. For 3 seconds; cessna was constant relative bearing so I took control and lowered nose to remain 900 ft AGL. A cessna passed overhead approximately 100 ft higher. After 5 seconds; I permitted student to proceed on crosswind leg; turning to 050 degrees and climbing to 1500 ft MSL. I broadcast on CTAF; 'aircraft shooting instrument approach to gai; you just caused a near collision; suggest you break off approach at tpa when flying in VMC!' no reply. While on downwind leg at 1500 ft MSL; I observed same cessna flying downwind leg much lower than tpa (estimate 500 ft MSL) and far closer laterally to runway than appropriate (estimate 600 ft from runway; flight path appeared from my viewpoint to be overhead northern boundary of aircraft parking area). I broadcast on CTAF; 'cessna aircraft Y do you realize you just caused an near midair collision?' aircraft Y broadcast a mumbled reply that I could not understand. I did not comment further. As my student proceeded downwind gai 32 at 1500 ft MSL; I watched aircraft Y continue flying downwind very low and very close to runway; until aircraft Y was approximately 1/4 mi beyond arrival end of gai 32 runway. Aircraft Y then made a 180 degree right turn to a direction parallel to gai 32; but approximately 1/4 mi south of extended centerline of gai 32. Aircraft Y then continued to turn right and then left to line up with extended centerline; then landed. Aircraft Y did not make any traffic pattern calls until 'final' once established on final approach. I continued to fly traffic patterns with my student; and landed full-stop after 3-4 more circuits. While my student was performing pre takeoff checks approximately 30 mins later; aircraft Y received IFR clearance; taxied past my aircraft for departure gai 32; and departed without further incident. My interpretation: I believe aircraft Y was practicing a VOR 14 instrument approach in VMC; including circle-to-land gai 32. Aircraft Y elected to perform these maneuvers in the manner appropriate to instrument conditions; including the full circle-to-land maneuver. I believe aircraft Y descended below published minimums for approach (1200 ft MSL) -- perhaps after obtaining visual on runway -- to approximately 1000 ft MSL; then flew downwind and circle-to-land as would be done in IMC (though 200+ ft higher; and laterally more distant from runway during downwind leg). My concern: pilot (instructor?) in aircraft Y performed his/her maneuvers with absolutely no regard to any of several other aircraft in gai traffic pattern; in VMC. The maneuver was poorly performed but; far more important; was dangerously performed with no consideration for potential conflicts with other aircraft operating in vicinity of gai. This frequently-occurring near midair collision is encouraged by lack of clear guidance in aim; and lack of clear guidance by FAA to instructors/pilots. My recommendations: 1) instrument instructors and students should be required during tests/reviews; to demonstrate their acceptance of these disciplines: a) practice instrument approachs performed at uncontrolled airports in VMC should use published tpa as appropriate da/MDA; and B) except when no other aircraft are present; descent below that minimum in VMC should only be performed in conformance with normal VMC traffic patterns and actual traffic flows at the airport concerned.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT PRACTICING SHORT FIELD TKOFS AND LNDGS ABOARD C152 EXPERIENCE NMAC WITH CESSNA SHOOTING A SIMULATED IFR APCH OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO THEIR TKOF RWY.

Narrative: INSTRUCTING C152 STUDENT ON TFC PATTERNS OPS AT GAI. STUDENT'S FIRST EXPERIENCE OF GAI. OPERATING NEAR MGTOW IN HOT VMC; SO USING SHORT FIELD TKOF TECHNIQUE TO MAXIMIZE ALT DURING INITIAL CLB. TURNING R TO 340 DEGS AT 750 FT MSL (200 FT AGL) TO CONFORM TO GAI 32 NOISE ABATEMENT DIRECTIONS. THIRD TKOF AFTER TOUCH-AND-GOES. HAD PREVIOUSLY WARNED STUDENT TO LOWER NOSE AT 900-1000 FT MSL TO CHK FOR TFC INBOUND ON VOR 14 OR GPS 14 APCHS FROM FDK DIRECTION; ALSO FOR TFC JOINING TFC PATTERN FROM NW ON EARLY DOWNWIND; OR FROM N ON 45-DEG JOIN. SOME MINS EARLIER; HAD HEARD ACFT Y CALL SEVERAL MI OUT ON VOR 14 APCH. USED THAT CALL AS EXAMPLE TO STUDENT OF NMAC RISK FROM ACFT APCHING GAI FROM NW; IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO RWY 32 TKOF TFC. HAD LISTENED FOR FURTHER CALLS FROM ACFT Y APCHING GAI; NOTHING HEARD. STUDENT WAS CLBING ON 340-HDG AT 900 FT MSL. I SAW CESSNA ACFT OVER STUDENT'S HEAD; AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH; APPROX 1/4 MI AWAY AND DSNDING. FOR 3 SECONDS; CESSNA WAS CONSTANT RELATIVE BEARING SO I TOOK CTL AND LOWERED NOSE TO REMAIN 900 FT AGL. A CESSNA PASSED OVERHEAD APPROX 100 FT HIGHER. AFTER 5 SECONDS; I PERMITTED STUDENT TO PROCEED ON XWIND LEG; TURNING TO 050 DEGS AND CLBING TO 1500 FT MSL. I BROADCAST ON CTAF; 'ACFT SHOOTING INST APCH TO GAI; YOU JUST CAUSED A NEAR COLLISION; SUGGEST YOU BREAK OFF APCH AT TPA WHEN FLYING IN VMC!' NO REPLY. WHILE ON DOWNWIND LEG AT 1500 FT MSL; I OBSERVED SAME CESSNA FLYING DOWNWIND LEG MUCH LOWER THAN TPA (ESTIMATE 500 FT MSL) AND FAR CLOSER LATERALLY TO RWY THAN APPROPRIATE (ESTIMATE 600 FT FROM RWY; FLT PATH APPEARED FROM MY VIEWPOINT TO BE OVERHEAD NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF ACFT PARKING AREA). I BROADCAST ON CTAF; 'CESSNA ACFT Y DO YOU REALIZE YOU JUST CAUSED AN NMAC?' ACFT Y BROADCAST A MUMBLED REPLY THAT I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND. I DID NOT COMMENT FURTHER. AS MY STUDENT PROCEEDED DOWNWIND GAI 32 AT 1500 FT MSL; I WATCHED ACFT Y CONTINUE FLYING DOWNWIND VERY LOW AND VERY CLOSE TO RWY; UNTIL ACFT Y WAS APPROX 1/4 MI BEYOND ARR END OF GAI 32 RWY. ACFT Y THEN MADE A 180 DEG R TURN TO A DIRECTION PARALLEL TO GAI 32; BUT APPROX 1/4 MI S OF EXTENDED CTRLINE OF GAI 32. ACFT Y THEN CONTINUED TO TURN R AND THEN L TO LINE UP WITH EXTENDED CTRLINE; THEN LANDED. ACFT Y DID NOT MAKE ANY TFC PATTERN CALLS UNTIL 'FINAL' ONCE ESTABLISHED ON FINAL APCH. I CONTINUED TO FLY TFC PATTERNS WITH MY STUDENT; AND LANDED FULL-STOP AFTER 3-4 MORE CIRCUITS. WHILE MY STUDENT WAS PERFORMING PRE TKOF CHKS APPROX 30 MINS LATER; ACFT Y RECEIVED IFR CLRNC; TAXIED PAST MY ACFT FOR DEP GAI 32; AND DEPARTED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. MY INTERP: I BELIEVE ACFT Y WAS PRACTICING A VOR 14 INST APCH IN VMC; INCLUDING CIRCLE-TO-LAND GAI 32. ACFT Y ELECTED TO PERFORM THESE MANEUVERS IN THE MANNER APPROPRIATE TO INST CONDITIONS; INCLUDING THE FULL CIRCLE-TO-LAND MANEUVER. I BELIEVE ACFT Y DSNDED BELOW PUBLISHED MINIMUMS FOR APCH (1200 FT MSL) -- PERHAPS AFTER OBTAINING VISUAL ON RWY -- TO APPROX 1000 FT MSL; THEN FLEW DOWNWIND AND CIRCLE-TO-LAND AS WOULD BE DONE IN IMC (THOUGH 200+ FT HIGHER; AND LATERALLY MORE DISTANT FROM RWY DURING DOWNWIND LEG). MY CONCERN: PLT (INSTRUCTOR?) IN ACFT Y PERFORMED HIS/HER MANEUVERS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO REGARD TO ANY OF SEVERAL OTHER ACFT IN GAI TFC PATTERN; IN VMC. THE MANEUVER WAS POORLY PERFORMED BUT; FAR MORE IMPORTANT; WAS DANGEROUSLY PERFORMED WITH NO CONSIDERATION FOR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH OTHER ACFT OPERATING IN VICINITY OF GAI. THIS FREQUENTLY-OCCURRING NMAC IS ENCOURAGED BY LACK OF CLR GUIDANCE IN AIM; AND LACK OF CLR GUIDANCE BY FAA TO INSTRUCTORS/PLTS. MY RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) INSTRUMENT INSTRUCTORS AND STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED DURING TESTS/REVIEWS; TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE DISCIPLINES: A) PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APCHS PERFORMED AT UNCTLED ARPTS IN VMC SHOULD USE PUBLISHED TPA AS APPROPRIATE DA/MDA; AND B) EXCEPT WHEN NO OTHER ACFT ARE PRESENT; DSCNT BELOW THAT MINIMUM IN VMC SHOULD ONLY BE PERFORMED IN CONFORMANCE WITH NORMAL VMC TFC PATTERNS AND ACTUAL TFC FLOWS AT THE ARPT CONCERNED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.