|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : row|
|Altitude||msl bound lower : 6800|
msl bound upper : 6800
|Controlling Facilities||tower : row|
|Operator||general aviation : personal|
|Make Model Name||Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng|
|Route In Use||approach : visual|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||pilot : commercial|
pilot : instrument
|Experience||flight time total : 3000|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Anomaly||conflict : airborne less severe|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Miss Distance||unspecified : 600|
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
We were cleared by tower for touch and go while on left downwind for runway 15. We were notified of similar traffic on right downwind for runway 15 (also a touch and go). We acknowledged aircraft in sight, slightly behind our position. Wind from east. Tailwind for us, headwind for other aircraft. We turned final and observed other aircraft higher and on base. We continued descending and went under other aircraft. He may have had the sun in his eyes, but noticed us about 1 min later and talked to tower. Nothing more said on radios. We did not communicate before passing under the other aircraft, cockpit workload. The impact of the situation came later and the only negative effect was an increase in adrenaline. Tower did not ask the second aircraft to watch for us. Normally training traffic are given the pattern west of the tower and full stop traffic given the standard pattern--a reasonable sep. In this case one of us probably should have been following the other. Tower usually tells traffic, 'north , you are #2 to follow traffic in left pattern,' etc. There may have been a student controller in tower also. The headwind probably kept other aircraft from turning final early. Heads up--base is also for looking! Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: incident took place at row, roswell, NM. Other aircraft was an small transport commuter and the reporter never saw the aircraft at time of passing and could not estimate the distance of the conflict. Overheard a comment made later that evening reference the incident that an small transport had a conflict in the pattern with an small aircraft, assumed they were the aircraft. No investigation by the tower or FAA and the incident apparently has been dropped.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN WITH 2 ACFT SHOOTING LNDGS.
Narrative: WE WERE CLRED BY TWR FOR TOUCH AND GO WHILE ON LEFT DOWNWIND FOR RWY 15. WE WERE NOTIFIED OF SIMILAR TFC ON RIGHT DOWNWIND FOR RWY 15 (ALSO A TOUCH AND GO). WE ACKNOWLEDGED ACFT IN SIGHT, SLIGHTLY BEHIND OUR POS. WIND FROM E. TAILWIND FOR US, HEADWIND FOR OTHER ACFT. WE TURNED FINAL AND OBSERVED OTHER ACFT HIGHER AND ON BASE. WE CONTINUED DSNDING AND WENT UNDER OTHER ACFT. HE MAY HAVE HAD THE SUN IN HIS EYES, BUT NOTICED US ABOUT 1 MIN LATER AND TALKED TO TWR. NOTHING MORE SAID ON RADIOS. WE DID NOT COMMUNICATE BEFORE PASSING UNDER THE OTHER ACFT, COCKPIT WORKLOAD. THE IMPACT OF THE SITUATION CAME LATER AND THE ONLY NEGATIVE EFFECT WAS AN INCREASE IN ADRENALINE. TWR DID NOT ASK THE SECOND ACFT TO WATCH FOR US. NORMALLY TRNING TFC ARE GIVEN THE PATTERN W OF THE TWR AND FULL STOP TFC GIVEN THE STANDARD PATTERN--A REASONABLE SEP. IN THIS CASE ONE OF US PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE OTHER. TWR USUALLY TELLS TFC, 'N , YOU ARE #2 TO FOLLOW TFC IN LEFT PATTERN,' ETC. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A STUDENT CTLR IN TWR ALSO. THE HEADWIND PROBABLY KEPT OTHER ACFT FROM TURNING FINAL EARLY. HEADS UP--BASE IS ALSO FOR LOOKING! CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: INCIDENT TOOK PLACE AT ROW, ROSWELL, NM. OTHER ACFT WAS AN SMT COMMUTER AND THE RPTR NEVER SAW THE ACFT AT TIME OF PASSING AND COULD NOT ESTIMATE THE DISTANCE OF THE CONFLICT. OVERHEARD A COMMENT MADE LATER THAT EVENING REF THE INCIDENT THAT AN SMT HAD A CONFLICT IN THE PATTERN WITH AN SMA, ASSUMED THEY WERE THE ACFT. NO INVESTIGATION BY THE TWR OR FAA AND THE INCIDENT APPARENTLY HAS BEEN DROPPED.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.