Near miss in the landing pattern..!!!!

[Hawkeyenfo]

As the story goes, there we were.....

Flying lead in a section of 170s, we were headed into the uncontrolled field for lunch and talking to a Mooney also inbound. I called at 10nm and he was at 8 nm, no problem. We enter on the 45 for a right downwind (RH Traffic on 13) to 13 (wind 190/6, 270OVC) and watched the Mooney land as we extended a bit to fly a nice low pass before coming around to land. The runway was clear and we were the only ones in the pattern as we head down (trees along west side of runway) I'm on the west edge and -2 is over the centerline to keep clear of parked traffic on the ramp. As we get about 1/4 of the way down the runway something catches my eye ahead.....it's another plane (looked all grey but was actually grey,dirty white and dull orange) crossing the numbers, landing on 31 (upwind and opposite of us!), dirty and slow!!! He had no light, no strobes, no radio calls, nothing. I pull up and come to the right and -2 pulls up and remains straight ahead. We talk on the radio and the FBO kid comes up and says something like "it must have been a guy calling on the phone with no electrical!!"

We land, park and go over to the FBO. Sure enough one of the locals had tried to call on his cell phone when he lost electrical power but no one could understand who it was or what he wanted. By the time we had landed he had gone in and ripped them a new one for "not clearing the pattern" for him. Kid told him that he wasn't a tower, the field was uncontrolled and that he was responsible for ensuring he avoided traffic in the pattern. Apparently, he was going to report US to the FAA but, when we went to find him, he was no where to be found.

Now, we are trying to decide if we need to use the NASA silver bullet for this. .... any advice on that?

Debriefing the event, a few things came to light:

- expect the unexpected, someone is always trying to kill you

- a well briefed form hop may not include everything you encounter!

- neither the Mooney nor our flight saw nor heard anything about this other plane (a C-210)

- even though the FBO had some type of cell phone comms with "someone" they failed to mention anything when we called at 10 nm for a traffic advisory (Mooney did not get anything either)

- wx conditions at the time were VFR but, with 2700OVC and a body of water at the south end of 13 along with fall tree colors made the aircraft approaching from somewhere to land downwind was virtually invisible

- if a questionable event occurs, all involved should stick around to discuss what happened and how to avoid the same situation in the future. As it is now, the other guy is most likely PO'd at us for not giving him the right of way he thought he deserved

Other thoughts, comments? Let me have 'em! Thanks....

Fly Safe......

[hilltop170]

Send in the NASA form. Everyone involved. Whenever there is an event that MIGHT need one. Download form from the AOPA website.

If you never hear anything from the feds about it, the form is filed and nothing happens. If the feds do come knocking on your door, it's been filed. Send it certified, return receipt. Keep the receipt from the post office. You'll have to prove it was sent within ten days of the event to be valid.

I've sent in a few over the years and never heard from the feds. If nothing else, it makes you think about the event again and maybe it will prevent a problem in the future. In any case it won't hurt anything to do it.

[dacker]

Hawkeye, I face a similar situation every time I fly at my home airport (Brenham, TX) on a weekend. We have a restaurant on the field so there is a lot of weekend traffic.

It never fails, someone comes in from the southeast (Houston) and either the first time they talk on the radio (if they talk at all) is when they call a "one half mile left base entry", irrespective of how many aircraft are in the pattern, or they decide to perform a straight-in and the first you hear about it is "so & so half mile final"!

There have been several times that I have had to perform an aerobatic maneuver in the pattern to avoid colliding with someone who can't be bothered to learn how to do a proper entry. Many of these are people who decide to do an instrument approach (VFR conditions) and mistakenly believe that this gives them priority over other landing traffic. I should mention that I have never had a problem with a no com airplane, my run-ins are usually with the high dollar GA guys (why is that?).

I actually carry an AOPA safety article in my flight bag "Operations at Nontowered Airports". The link is http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf
I would suggest that everyone read this regardless of experience, it is good info and just might save your butt some day. If everyone used the same standardized entry then there would be far fewer midairs.

It sounds to me like the guy that wants to call the Feds might just be cutting his own throat, he probably did a straight-in and wasn't extra vigilant as would have been appropriate in the case of no comms.

The NASA form certainly wouldn't hurt, after all the purpose is to improve safety, but I personally wouldn't do it just out of fear that the guy is going to rat me out!

David

[GAHorn]

Unfair as it may seem.... FAR's give right-of-way to aircraft on final. The fact that you entered on a 45-degree to upwind and called every leg in the pattern...if you arrive on base-leg and an airplane is on final... the other aircraft has the right-of-way.
The purpose of entering the traffic pattern at some earlier-than-final place...is to observe airport conditions and other aircraft in order to space oneself accordingly. (And most instrument approaches bring the aircraft to final...although circling approaches and many non-precision approaches do not.) If an aircraft is making an instrument approach he has no obligation to break off the approach and enter existing traffic if the approach places him on final (where he automatically has the right of way.)

As for the numbskull who landed upwind... he had the obligation to observe other aircraft... note the active runway... and enter traffic and space himself accordingly. No radio call, no cell phone call, no banner -being - towed - announcing - intentions.... gave him priority over other traffic already in the pattern ... and certainly not over other aircraft on final to the active runway.
Unicom has neither authority nor obligation to advise traffic. The only purpose of Unicom is to provide a common frequency and to provide active runway and meteorological info such as winds and barometer.

Let the idiot landing upwind call the FAA. Loan him YOUR cell phone to make the call. Get his tail number and a physical description of the pilot and file a complaint with your FAA - FSDO. (He might find himself having to accomplish a demonstrated competency checkride with the FSDO Inspector.)

Meanwhile you did the right thing to give way to him. He may also have been experiencing an emergency ...a cockpit fire, etc., ... and he may have needed that runway. And you can be right in your right-of-way...but you can be dead-right.

Glad it worked out.

[cessna170bdriver]

As for the numbskull who landed upwind...

Am I missing something here? Shoud that be DOWNwind? I usually make it a point to land upwind.

The only purpose of Unicom is to provide a common frequency and to provide active runway and meteorological info such as winds and barometer.

A very small nit to pick, but I was under the impression that by definition "active" runways were only found at aiports with an operating control tower. Not the only term in popular misuse, I'm sure...

Miles

[dacker]

Yes George, you are right... the aircraft on final does legally have the right of way. Common sense, courtesy, and popular belief are a bit contrary to the bare minimums that are in the FARs concerning operations at nontowered airports. The fact of the matter is you can (maybe) split S right down to final and cut off an airplane on base right before he turns final and probably have the right of way (as long as you fulfill aerobatic requirements). OK, maybe that is extreme.

I generally give way to everyone regardless of who is right, and I certainly don't mind extending my downwind for someone on a practice approach... as long as he talks to me and lets me know that he is there.

Needless to say, I try to use what is considered a standard entry unless I know for certain that I am not cutting off anyone. The link to the AOPA safety pub that I recommended earlier is what I try to follow as closely as possible, I think it contains some good info that would be beneficial to a lot of pilots out there. It isn't gospel, but it is right on in my opinion. I believe that there are a few too many who rely on the "Big sky, small airplane" theory, and they always seem to be pointed at me!

David

[GAHorn]

As for the numbskull who landed upwind...

Am I missing something here? Shoud that be DOWNwind? I usually make it a point to land upwind.

I used the term as it was used by Hawkeye. I understood what he meant and didn't think to offer the correction... Good point, Miles.

The only purpose of Unicom is to provide a common frequency and to provide active runway and meteorological info such as winds and barometer.

A very small nit to pick, but I was under the impression that by definition "active" runways were only found at aiports with an operating control tower. Not the only term in popular misuse, I'm sure...

Miles

Again, I may have used a technically incorrect term, but I thought it would be universally understood... perhaps I might better have said "runway in use".

[GAHorn]

... Common sense, courtesy, ....

I generally give way to everyone regardless of who is right, and I certainly don't mind extending my downwind for someone on a practice approach... as long as he talks to me and lets me know that he is there. ...

Common sense and courtesy were clearly not in the repetoire of the idiot landing "downwind"... and cannot be counted on being used by others. Fly defensively is the only thing that works, of course.

"as long as he talkes to me..." assumes he has a working radio, on the correct frequency. Big assumptions at uncontrolled fields.... Heh?

(Also fails to take into consideration that others may be experiencing an inflight emergency...heart attack, fire, engine failure, oil pressure, etc etc . We need to remain cognizant of the possibilities that can exist out there at all times. Fly defensively and courteously. The other guy may be having problems....if not mechanical...perhaps mental.

[Hawkeyenfo]

Okay, I'm thinking too fast for my typing ability. So, it should have been :



These are great comments from everyone, thanks for the discussion. Always assuming that people will do the unexpected. I believe that another of the factors here were that we were in the "established" pattern (for the winds) following the only other aircraft out there and we saw/heard no one else approaching the airfield (4 people in all, 2 in the mooney).

Thinking about it, we came from roughly 180-190 and I had been scanning the entire pattern for 5 minutes or so approaching from over the water and did not see anyone (can you say...set myself up to think there was no one else out there coming the opposite way.)

I have no idea wheter the 210 was on a straight-in or a right pattern for 31 (again, right pattern for 13, left for 31 due to historic town nearby). I'm fairly certain he was not in the left pattern for 31 as it would have been opposite of us while we entered the downwind for 13. Nor do I know if he had any other trouble (emergency, physical issue, panic, etc)

Unfortunately, in this case, we/I may never find out exactly what was going on since the guy parked his plane, then left (or remained unavailable). We stayed there for over an hour and a half asking around and looking for him to talk about what we all saw/did. I have his tail number and got his name off the FAA website and may, after I get back to shore (currently at sea for a bit) may try to give him a call.

I am very thankful that it all ended safely for everyone and have added yet another "lessons-learned" to my list of things to pass along to those I meet and hangar-fly with.

PS ....yep, I did mis-type upwind when I meant he was landing downwind in the original post.

[voorheesh]

It amazes me how quickly pilots react to situations such as described in this thread by getting angry and pointing fingers at each other. If you think this is a safety related incident then file a NASA report so the information may be entered into the safety database. Maybe if enough reports come in, someone will take action to make a change. If you file it to protect yourself from FAA action, you are wasting your time and postage expense (at least in this case). Someone mentioned AOPA as a source to download a NASA form. I have a better idea. Why not contact AOPA and ask why they oppose every effort by the FAA to enact a meaningful, enforceable rules for pilots operating at non-towered airports? AOPA opposes nearly every effort by the FAA to enact any safety rule that may adversely effect their members. In the meanwhile, as George points out, don't be surprised if you encounter a non radio aircraft landing downwind on the same runway you want to use. If he/she is "lower" than you "on final approach to that runway", then "he/she" has the right of way. You can whine and complain about it until the cows come home, but that is the the way it is in general aviation today.

[dacker]

I mentioned AOPA's Safety Pub on "Operating at Nontowered Airports"... I believe that it is worth looking at by anyone who flies. You can get it by the link that I posted above.
David

[GAHorn]

It amazes me how quickly pilots react to situations such as described in this thread by getting angry and pointing fingers at each other. If you think this is a safety related incident then file a NASA report so the information may be entered into the safety database. Maybe if enough reports come in, someone will take action to make a change. If you file it to protect yourself from FAA action, you are wasting your time and postage expense (at least in this case). Someone mentioned AOPA as a source to download a NASA form. I have a better idea. Why not contact AOPA and ask why they oppose every effort by the FAA to enact a meaningful, enforceable rules for pilots operating at non-towered airports? AOPA opposes nearly every effort by the FAA to enact any safety rule that may adversely effect their members. In the meanwhile, as George points out, don't be surprised if you encounter a non radio aircraft landing downwind on the same runway you want to use. If he/she is "lower" than you "on final approach to that runway", then "he/she" has the right of way. You can whine and complain about it until the cows come home, but that is the the way it is in general aviation today.

That may have come across a bit more accusatory than Voorhees intended....(it appears as if our friend Voorhees is himself angry at the anger of others)... AOPA does not oppose every FAA action. In fact they are very supportive of safety improvement actions by FAA.

In any case, .... I disagree that filling out a NASA form is unimportant. The PURPOSE of the NASA form is primarily to assist NASA in identifying aviation hazards and finding solutions. In order to encourage pilots to report hazardous experiences they offer a certain degree of protection to the reporter. The idiot may have filed a NASA form and be protected from official action provided that officials find out about it only from his own report. But if they find out from other sources he may find himself under scrutiny by the feds. For that reason filing the NASA form is important for both your personal protection and you should contact FSDO for possible enforcement follow-up. (The two reports are unrelated.)
Hawkeye, I recommend you file the NASA report and write/call a seperate report to your local FSDO Inspectors. If you are sufficiently convincing to the inspector (and it sounds convincing to me...no radio, landing downwind against traffic, no evidence of emergency, refusal to communicate with others*) ... then he has a better-than-average chance of getting a call from an FAA Inspector, which will be a lot more impressive than his receiving a call from you so he can give you a piece of his mind.

* The FAA sees attitude as a serious matter. As an example, it was attitude that got Bob Hoover's ticket lifted for two years and ulitmately caused the insurance companies to refuse coverage for his flights that permanently grounded him. It was attitude that got an acquaintance of mine grounded for 3 years until he finally submitted to a competency check ride.

I do not think it a good idea for you to contact him personally. Let the FAA do that. Report it to NASA and FSDO as soon as possible. If it becomes "stale" it will have no beneficial result.

[flat country pilot]

What does the FAA consider a near miss?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Hawkeyfo I'm not sure of your total general aviation experience but I'm here to tell you unfortunately this will not be your last incident of this type.

As others have said you must fly defensively.

I try not to throw to many stones at other people because I live in a glass house. I don't intentionally not see others or hear others or forget radio calls or have the wrong frequency in the radio. I rarely, if ever, do a straight in approach. I try to mix in with traffic whether I'm in my 170, my Cub with no radio or the MedEvac Helicopter I fly though technically I'm to avoid the flow of fix wing traffic in the helicopter. It doesn't always work out.

I might suggest you just keep this guy in mind and if you bump into him on the ramp you might just ask how his radio emergency worked out. You might be surprised the story he'll tell and you may realize what state of mind he might have been in to land down wind with his "emergency". On the other hand he may lay into you or he may have forgotten all about it. If he gets nasty I'd just walk away, neither of you will win the argument that will ensue.

In any case I wouldn't go tracking him down. That I'm afraid might be considered aggressive on your part. Like tracking down a driver who cut you off at an intersection three weeks prior.

[flat country pilot]

Pat yourself on the back for spotting him and let it go.

Bill