This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
I decided to practice aerobatics east of Lake X and once I was done with practice I planned to perform three takeoffs and landings in the Pitts S1. The airport was very full this day with seven airplanes in the pattern ranging from Cessna 172s, a Cessna 150, and a Cessna 182.
Due to the Pitts’ high performance capabilities, I decided to do a mid-field intersection departure for Runway XX. I held short at the intersection taxiway awaiting the first four planes to perform their touch and goes.
After the fourth plane was airborne, there was an Aircraft Y on long final. I proceeded on the runway and held short until the fourth aircraft upwind traffic was insight. Once the traffic was insight and I saw that there was at least 500 feet distance from me and the other aircraft I proceeded to takeoff.
Due to the performance capability I was catching up to Aircraft Y on the climb. Since I was catching up with Aircraft Y I called on the radio to the aircraft that I was going to side step to the right to provide room and continue my climb beyond 2,300 feet before making my left crosswind departure. My left crosswind turn was initiated at 3,500 feet. I proceeded to head to my practice area and after I was done I came back to do three takeoffs and landings.
The potential issue, which was brought to my attention, was that the Aircraft Y pilot felt that we had a “near miss.” As a pilot in command I operated the aircraft safely providing separation of 500 feet of more and communicating with the pilot on the radio with my location and intentions.
The Pitts S1 is a high performance aircraft, which makes it difficult to be in the pattern full of underpowered aircraft.
To prevent this occurrence or situation I believe waiting until all seven aircraft have landed before proceeding to takeoff or fly when the pattern is not as full as it was that morning. I also would note that performing a full length takeoff would also help instead of an intersection departure when there are seven or more aircraft in the pattern.
Lastly, I would like to humbly end by saying that as an air racer, air show and competition aerobatic pilot, safety is the utmost importance to me. Following the rules being safe while making others feel safe is what we strive for in this industry.
Primary Problem as determined by an ASRS analyst: Human Factors.
Over taking another airplane in the pattern is never ok. This is a good example of the first bad decision adding to successive bad situations. In this case all turned out without incident.
Weekends are a mess at my home base. On the ground and in the air. I now avoid the weekend. I also went back to late day flying.
I am grateful that the airport is busy I just like to avoid potential problems like the above post.
I do agree entirely with the comment of Mr. Phill
“Due to the Pitts’ high performance capabilities, I decided to do a mid-field intersection departure for Runway XX”…..with 7 planes in the pattern.
OK, let’s all just forget our own “Pitts Envy” for a minute.
He does fess up and his ‘What Would I Do Differently’ statement at the end is appropriate for the circumstances. Would he have filed the ASRS report if Aircraft Y hadn’t complained is another question…
Good on him for highlighting the possible consequences of doing “non-standard” (i.e. dumb) stuff in a nontowered airport traffic pattern.
Not sure which “rules” he safely followed (FAR 91.113 Right of Way?), but at least he apparently did pass “well clear” (500’)…which IS subjective.
Sign me (humbly);
Former USAF F-15C & B-1B pilot currently flying an underpowered light sport aircraft.
With 7 aircraft in pattern, not using the normal takeoff point instead of mid field departure added to the situation. Departure should have been planned according to the current traffic flow, in addition the aircraft on a LONG final did not help in the flow of traffic either (was not said BUT) was the long final a straight in or a traffice pattern extension due to the amount of traffice in pattern.
Incomplete explaination of situation. Fit in, “Not Stand Out”
Fit in, “Not Stand Out” sounds like good advice to me.
Did the Pitts pilot ever thing of pulling back the power until the other aircraft had turned crosswind?
In here lays the Answer “He thought he was right” “Wrong” but ended Well!
when you say you were communicating, did you mean he was talking back to you as in a 2 way conversation, or were you talking to the other pilot and not receiving communication back,
One could also say that the pilot of Y had engine envy and a higher performance airplane should have stayed in its place and not passed him, be it a Pitts, 747, or F-22.
Granted this ARSA is from the writers point of view but there is nothing here to suggest he violated the air rules of the road. I am only speaking as a survior of B52 patterns of mixed traffic. Aviate (keep the blue sid up) Navigate (don’t hit nuthing) Communicate (let others know)
“The Pitts S1 is a high performance aircraft, which makes it difficult to be in the pattern full of underpowered aircraft.”
This pilot appears to be blaming the pilots of the “underpowered” aircraft for his or her own neglect in allowing for the higher performance of the Pitts. As the PIC of the higher performing aircraft, you’re responsible for taking that performance into account and fitting into the existing pattern.
100 thousand percent agree !!!
Damn puddle jumpers in the pattern. He sure showed them who’s the boss. He should be grounded.