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.
While descending into ZZZ, my student elected to make a midfield entry into the downwind. We briefed the approach and announced our position on CTAF at about four miles outside of the airport.
Following our call, another aircraft asked our location in relation to the airport. We attempted to reply, but severe radio congestion prevented a response.
The student and I began scanning for traffic, but it appeared that no other aircraft were in our area.
Just after crossing midfield, we began our turn to downwind when the previous aircraft announced a midfield downwind. We spotted the traffic 100 to 150 feet below us and passing underneath us to our left.
We took evasive action and initiated a climb, then rejoined a normal downwind behind the aircraft.
No evasive action was taken by the other aircraft and it seemed he was not aware of the near miss.
The rest of the flight occurred without incident.
I believe the cause of the near miss was a result of extreme frequency congestion in the area. Communication in the area was encumbered by heavy usage and several radio calls we made were blocked due to other transmissions, leading to confusion over aircraft positions at the airport we were using.
A review of the chart showed a large number of airports within 50 nm operating on XYY.Z and several of those airports were surrounding the busy nearby metro areas.
My recommendation would be to evaluate the airport usage of that area and assign unique frequencies to several of the busier airports in the area.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 1807149
At my recent annual I had new LED lights with pulsing light controller installed. The sole purpose was for better recognition, see and be seen.
How many times does this scenario play out every day around the country? Another instructor that assumes all the aircraft in a non-towered airport traffic pattern are up on the CTAF freq????
I sure hope not.
“My recommendation would be to evaluate the airport usage of that area and assign unique frequencies to several of the busier airports in the area.”
No; more frequencies are not going to solve this problem. Having all pilots exercise in-flight discipline & professionalism, along with following what’s in AC 90-66B might.
With a unicom/ctaf frequency assigned for non-tower airports, there is NO requirement for pilot to use it to communicate .
Maybe all pilots should required to use the radio, but it’s not in the regs today.
Also, there are a lot of no-electrics aircraft which cannot communicate on the ctaf.
Handheld radios work well in the pattern, and most of our local non-electrics pilots use one.
So, flying at a non-tower airport requires a pilot to be looking everywhere an aircraft might be.
I agree.
It’s still alarming how many pilots think that the more they “narrate” their trips around the pattern, the safer EVERYONE will be.
I disagree. In this case it does appear a new CTAF may be helpful. In this instance both airplanes did have radios and were talking. It just appears one of those transmissions were blocked. Yes see and avoid but no denying radio communication helps.
I have been flying for 54 years and in all that time the number of Unicom frequencies has not changed. Yet we have gone from single-crystal radios to 360 channel radios to 720 channel radios during that time. The same frequency is shares in some areas by as many as 6 or 8 airports. Surely the FAA/FCC could allocate a few additional frequencies to this safety-critical service.
According to Wikipedia: In the United States, radio frequencies made available by the Federal Communications Commission for use as UNICOM are:
122.700 MHz
122.725 MHz
122.800 MHz
122.950 MHz
122.975 MHz
123.000 MHz
123.050 MHz
123.075 MHz
Most of these frequencies are rarely used at all, or only used at towered airports where they are not used for safety, but for convenience. Why not spread them around to uncontrolled fields where they are badly needed for critical safety purposes. Instead, numerous non-towered airports in the same area are forced to use the same 122.8 or 122.7 channels. This is something that warrants a concentrated effort to fix. It would be an easy task to do but someone at the FAA has to recognize and prioritize it.
If the other aircraft was passing 100-150ft below you in the pattern what was the point of evasive action? Sounds like paranoid rote training response to a relatively non event.
I believe the elephant in the room was crossing midfield at a non towered airport, at around pattern altitude, with congested CTAF and announcing yourself four miles out before doing so.
The student needs a different instructor.
AIM (2018) 7-6-3 NMAC. Near Midair Collision Less than 500 feet. I’d say 150′ qualifies.
Mid-field crossing — there are two types, “standard” and “alternate”. I was taught the Alternate. The standard, to me, is a bit more complicated.
It qualifies in definition. So all vehicle traffic on a highway are Near Road Collisions.
Most codes are written to accommodate a legal precedence and a low denominator.
Otherwise it would be an endless series of if this, if that to clarify each situation.
Wasn’t aware the AIM had definition for near road collisions. Learn something new everyday.
My opinion is the instructor did proper thing. Climb the airplane, and re-enter the pattern. But just my opinion.
Yes – I have no problem with the mid-field entry when conditions are proper. I know it doesn’t eliminate the possibility of a NORDO, but if there’s much frequency congestion, how are you going to confirm the pattern is not busy of at least radioed aircraft, the basic guideline in the Airplane Flying Handbook
This has been an on-going issue for many decades and getting alternative frequencies authorized is something that rarely happens with much success. As many pilots are aware, see-and-avoid has a few strategies that help a little – turn on all your lights (nav, beacon, strobe, landing light); keep communication announcements as concise as possible with intent made clear; a couple of wing wags inbound may make you visible to others – head on views are the toughest to see; use approach speeds – arriving at cruise settings reduces what opportunities you may have; have all aboard help with scanning – and pre-brief them on how to call out other aircraft; check that your audio panel switches are properly set; move charts and other material off the glareshield; keep hands and arms down so not to block the view of others in front; if you suspect conflict, do a 360 outside the inbound leg – and announce it. These are all small ideas but we have to bring forth all the help we can. I think we’ve all been in a similar situation.
A “near miss” is a hit!
For a profession that purports to live by precision, loose this obnoxious term.
You experienced a near hit.
For someone who is complaining about precise language, how about…
LOSE this obnoxious term? (Not LOOSE.)
😂😂😂