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 was in the traffic pattern with my student teaching landings and takeoffs. We had landed and done a touch-and-go; after about halfway down the runway we started our takeoff and climb out.
While that was happening there was a Piper Cherokee from a flight school that was on short final and had done a go-around at the same time.
While I was climbing to about 500 to 600 feet, I got a notice from other instructors I work with that their ADS-B showed the Cherokee directly above us during their go-around within 200 feet vertically, and not until right above us during their go-around did they finally sidestep to the right to keep us in sight.
They proceeded to stay in the traffic pattern close behind us the entire time.
Within 500 feet is a near miss air collision according to the FAA. This bozo needs to learn common sense on go-around procedures regardless if it’s at a towered or uncontrolled airport and sidestep during a go-around when you have aircraft straight ahead of you in the upwind to maintain visual sight.
Our blind spot in a C152 is above us with high wings, so obviously we couldn’t see the aircraft.
Primary Problem: Procedure
ACN: 1992851
None of us flies transparent airplanes. A pilot can do a superb job of looking, but that won’t eliminate blind spots. So be a little kinder—you don’t have X-ray vision either.
My reply: Quit trying to blame the aircraft. You knew it was not transparent the first time you did a pre-flight. So your plane has no stick or yoke that makes your plane change apparent positions with the oncoming traffic? You think you have a right to sit there and whine? Sir, please look around, and if you refuse, announce you are in the pattern and I will gladly perform a go-around to get out of your way..
This is a very real situation at many non-towered fields, especially those near us used for intensive flight training in the Bay area – think San Martin, Hollister, Watsonville (yes the site of the much discussed fatal collision in 2022 between a Cessna Twin on a fast straight in and a Cessna 150 turning base to final). The lesson I got out of the article is to always side step on go around right away, before there is a conflict. In an ideal world, there should be no need for the departing traffic to execute an early cross wind to avoid conflict but if I was the 152 pilot hearing the Cherokee report going around, it might be smart to increase the unknown separation as quickly as possible. I don’t think the high wing vs. low wing visibility argument is lame at all – it’s a real fact of life that we all have to deal with. Even the youngest, sharpest eyes on the planet can’t see objects through solid aluminum. See and avoid only works when you can actually see.
PA28 was in the wrong….. over taking the previous departure, losing sight of the departing traffic, and since he was probably going to land after the go around, he should have adjusted his flight path to follow the c150.
This is what the Instructor said: Our blind spot in a C152 is above us with high wings, so obviously we couldn’t see the aircraft.
Listen my friend, you have no right to sit there like a blind bat and say “obviously” we cannot see the aircraft above us. It is your duty to look around and SEE the planes
around you. “Obviously” won’t explain it if the 2 planes collide and all are killed. Is this what they will put in the paper “obviously” one had a high wing so “Obviously” it could not see the plane above it and “Obviously” the low wing could not see us”…. so we all sat there, fat dumb and happy not seeing, and not looking. This is a pathetic response.
It’s a fact—there are many blind spots in all airplanes. None of us flies transparent airplanes. A pilot can do a superb job of looking, but that won’t eliminate blind spots. So be a little kinder—you don’t have X-ray vision either.
Even at controlled airports I have heard ATC clear the runway for an immediate takeoff when another plane is on final. Early in my own training I have had to go around when a plane with a student and CFI did not take off immediately but lingered a little too long on the runway. Did the Cessna listen to the calls and determine that the runway was clear on final?
Usually there is more than one mistake made by more than one person. Even with a controlled tower mistakes can be made. Let’s not judge the other guy before we’re sure we did everything correctly, and think about how we can minimize problems in the future.
The worst part of this…both aircraft had students and at least one had an instructor. What are we teaching new pilots about ADM, look-and-avoid, traffic pattern procedures, separation, etc…
2 problems I have with explanation. Did the instructor of the C150 hear the piper pilot say he was going around? If so HE should have immediately turned crosswind (at a safe altitude) to avoid a conflict. I don’t disagree that the piper should have sidestepped but its both aircrafts responsibility to avoid conflict. Calling the piper pilot a bozo helps nothing and only served to make the C150 instructor look like an jerk. 2nd point. Why was the C150 still on upwind at 600 feet?
C150 or C152?
As for altitude at our airport you didn’t turn crosswind until at TPA.
I place the blame squarely on the Piper aircraft. The aircraft ahead has the right of way during takeoff.
“Why was the C150 still on upwind at 600 feet?”
Doesn’t the FAA advise against turning onto the crosswind leg of the traffic pattern unless within 300’ of the Traffic Pattern Altitude (TPA)? In other words, fly straight-out until at least 700’, based on a standard TPA of 1,000’.
I do agree in most part You’ve written, Mr.Dan,
Seems a valuable safety addition to low-wing and high-wing GA aircraft would be cameras that show what’s in those blind spots, similar to modern cars showing what’s behind them. One more addition to the ‘glass dashboard.’ Could save lives. But it would take the FAA at least a decade to approve it.
Regards/J
I agree 100%
Seems like a reasonable idea. The FAA would not need to approve it unless it was made required equipment. Unless modifications were made to structural components to mount the camera or the display it would be a minor modification. Essentially like the GoPro cameras that so many mount to their aircraft.
I agree. If it in fact happened this way, the low Wing definitely did not exercise situational awareness.