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.
There were three potential mid-air collisions averted today if it weren’t for the actions of three separate pilots, two being instructors and one unknown.
I am an instructor who was flying with my student for training purposes in light-moderate gusting conditions in a Cessna 150. Other airport conditions included VMC and five aircraft in the pattern. I was Pilot not Flying (PNF) as my student was (initially) at the controls.
My student and I were on an extended left downwind for Runway XX at ZZZ for other traffic, which included two aircraft on final. At approximately the 1.5-mile mark from the threshold while on the downwind, I hear a traffic alert in my headset via Bluetooth from my iPad (connected to a Garmin GDL 50 for ADS-B in and traffic alerting capabilities, amongst other things).
I was on another screen and took a few seconds to switch to the airport map to identify where this traffic was coming from because I had accidentally inhibited the traffic alert popup, which brings attention to the traffic conflict.
By the time I got to the map screen, I see a Bonanza coming from my right, approximately 750 feet horizontally and 150 feet below my aircraft (my iPad stated 200 feet, which indicates an ADS-B calculated range of 151 feet to 250 feet).
At this moment, I take controls from the student and start a steep turn to the right. By the time this aircraft passed us, it was within 75 feet horizontally and still 150 feet below.
After this incident, the pilot of the Bonanza cut off a Diamond DA-20 on final, with an even closer, near miss of what was definitely less than 1,000 feet.
I was watching this Bonanza pilot on my iPad during this second incident, and I can confirm that the instructor in the Diamond swiftly veered the aircraft to the right, narrowly avoiding a second collision with this Bonanza. Instructor advised me that he had also taken controls from his student.
The third incident I did not witness, but this instructor later told me that the Bonanza had a third incident with a Cessna in the pattern, which was also a near miss.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 1965790
Lots of bashing the iPad, but it was the first warning in this instance. Lots of assuming the CFI wasn’t looking out, but what if the Bonanza was descending – as in to make a landing- it may have been ( likely) above the 150 enough to not be seen in a high wing plane. First sight was at about 150 feet below. At a decent rate of closure, how long would the Bonanza even have been visible? Measured in fractions of seconds. Sounds like the backup traffic alert did exactly what it was supposed to do even if eyes were outside.
My comment has nothing to do with the iPad. Rather another issue I have noticed over and over again and discussions about traffic patterns:
The original poster noted that the bonanza was Converging from the right, this gives the bonanza the RIGHT OF WAY.
Everybody seems to assume that Airplanes “established” in the pattern, somehow have the right of way and that these other airplanes “come out of nowhere“ I don’t find that anywhere in the regulations.
If you are on a left downwind, the aircraft on the 45 is converging from your right and has the right of way. You need to be watching out for him.
And what about the pilot on final that the Bonanza conflicted with?
There’s a reason why we have established ways of entering the pattern. The author of this text said they were on an extended left downwind. Does it sound reasonable to you enter the downwind 2 miles beyond the threshold?
A couple of years ago, I was on a long final for 22L at our local tower-controlled airport. A Citation was approaching on a base leg for 22R. Tower called out traffic and I acknowledged that I had the Citation, the Citation acknowledged that he had me on TCAS. I could tell that this guy was going to blow right through the approach to 22R and was going to cross my final flight path. I told tower what I was seeing, because I knew the Citation pilot was not looking out the window. I was flying a bright yellow Supercub on polished aluminum amphibious floats, hardly something anyone could miss at 200 feet. I mentioned to tower that this guy ought to look out the window once in a while.
Let me be as nice as I can. Throw the stupid iPad out and fly the plane by looking out the window!!! It feels good being nice. I fly with a lot of new, mostly young pilots and I think about a hundred percent of the time they look first at the ipad or which is always head down, they finally look oir the window.
Or
YOU DON’T NEED AN IPAD TO DO TOUCH AND GOES!
Could’ve have said this better. These electonic toys will be their doom without the primary tool of eyeballs.
I dunno….guilty or innocent? Tough one to call based on what is NOT included in the narrative. With 777 hours total time & 365 hours of dual-given, I’m willing to give the CFI the benefit of the doubt. Of course, we’ll never know the Bonanza driver’s version.
I absolutely agree ADS-B IN is a great tool when used to supplement, but not replace, “seeing and avoiding” with your eyeballs. Sounds (pun intended) as if the CFI knew how to configure the technology available to their best advantage.
In a C-150 cockpit, I’m betting the iPad was somewhere on the CFI’s lap or strapped to a leg…which meant there had to be some ‘heads down’ time while the CFI re-configured it for the correct map display. Not optimum, but way better than sticking it up somewhere where it effectively blocks the field of view. I often see configurations where a “device” is mounted above the glare shield, as if it were a see-through HUD…
As far as radio calls and traffic pattern entries: Even with the new AC 90-66C, “Non-towered Airport Flight Operations” now published, I will continue to treat every traffic pattern like I’m wading into the Battle of Britain and expect to be ambushed.
Glad this NMAC incident generated a voluntary ASRS submission and not an NTSB Preliminary Report.
The Bonanza pilot was probably looking at his IPad to figure out what all the beeping was about, but the time he changed screens all the beeping disappeared so all was good!
When the ADSB can show me 3D spatial views I might trust them more. Come on programmers, get with it. My CAD system has been showing things in 3D for the better part of 50 years now!
Kind of sounds like everyone’s evasive actions were somewhat unwarranted, but that seems to be the case these days, notably among I presume young inexperienced rote trained instructors.
Wish I knew where you fly so I could SEE AND AVOID YOU.
Technology in the cockpit is great, especially during IFR flights, but it doesn’t replace looking outside when VFR. Pilots today are no better than car drivers. If you don’t look out the windows you will not see what you are about to hit. Nothing replaces talking on the radio and listening while approaching and while entering the airport environment. Unfortunately, common sense is not so common any more.
So, so right You’re, Mr. Joe Reid.
So, so right You’re, Mr. Joe Reid.
IPads are great for getting an idea where the traffic is….then eyes outside to find the traffic.
Sounds very Cirrus-esque to me. 😉
I miss the good old days when people made fun of Mooney pilots instead of Cirrus pilots.
Head on a swivel 🤨
That’s right Jim. BTW , I often have to yell that at snowboarders. They never look before turning heelside.
Nowhere does the author mention any radio calls being made by anyone involved, including his own aircraft.
And it’s strange that even after his aledged near miss, he continued to follow the other aircraft on his iPad, IN THE PATTERN, rather than having eyes OUTSIDE the aircraft.
Doesn’t seem like a very good example being set for his student.
None of this lessens the blame on the renegade Bonanza driver but, you know… “SEE and be seen” is the self preservation equation.
And so right You’re too, Mr. Ken T.
Most suspected hard landings, and other more serious incidents occur because the PIC stops flying the aircraft. In some cases, they become distracted by issues unrelated to the actual control and continued flight of the aircraft. In some cases they become fixated on chasing malfunctioning warning lights, and or computer errors, again, not directly crucial to maintaining control. This underscores the issues related in the above article. I phones, I pads etc. are not an integral part of the instrumentation or the flight control systems, and have no built in redundancy, or ongoing reliability. They are not a necessity. They are a convenience. They do not release us from the responsibility of constantly being on the lookout for other aircraft, and maintaining control of our’s.
Think a little bit about what you just read Earl. Pilot not flying, a secondary and Superior instrument ( the Garmin nav and map system) which may not be present in many trainers, a 150 at 75 to 85 knots in an established approach pattern and a bonanza coming in from nowhere at its cruising speed and the PNF happened to get a gift through the Bluetooth into his headset to allow him to assess the bigger picture as he was reacting to an incoming threat. I’d say that the instructor had things well under control and may have been responsible for avoiding a possible disaster. I’m certain you’re a wonderful pilot and yet it’s hard to put into a few words for the whole of the incident as seen from the cockpit.
Need more info to determine fault if any. Was the Bonanza non-com? No mention of any position reports from him. I have to assume that the instructors teaching were giving position reports. If it wasn’t a towered airport no radio is required. As the previous commenter stated “See and be seen “ is the first rule of the air and all of the glass, iPads and ads-b are creating a head’s down cockpit environment that’s not conducive to air safety.
Once again, watching an I-Pad takes priority over looking outside. Maybe the Bonanza pilot was doing the same thing? Midairs waiting to happen, thanks to the growing heads-down ADSB dependence. Wake up and get your eyes off of that I-Pad and outside in a proper traffic scan, were they should be.
I would disagree with this statement. It appears the ipad is what alerted the instructor to the possible collision. Eyes outside do not always equal seeing the hazard. Even looking outside most pilots would not expect another aircraft to enter a pattern incorrectly and to see a fast moving bonanza low against ground clutter would be even more difficult. Always be aware of your surroundings and do so using every means possible including technology.
ALWAYS expect another aircraft to enter the pattern incorrectly, Courtney. Just as in driving, always fly defensively.
Always have the mindset that other pilots cannot see you or hear you…
What makes you think he was looking at the iPad when he received the alert? Most likely looking for the traffic on the left to start the base turn
Agreed. But (s)he should never have averted attention to the iPad, especially manipulating it to change screens etc. The warning should have prompted immediate VISUAL SCAN in all directions. As a CFI never treat yourself as PNF
You are always PIC. SEE and be seen!