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.
In the traffic pattern for Runway 35 in Aircraft X at Aurora State Airport (KUAO) in Oregon.
The tower was closed so the airport was uncontrolled at the time.
My student was flying and making all appropriate radio calls.
We had just taken off after our second landing and radio calls had been made to indicate we were taking off to remain in the pattern and had turned crosswind.
Prior to our downwind call, I identified same altitude traffic flying in the same direction as the downwind, but it was too wide for me to know the intentions for sure.
I was helping my student to identify that traffic when another aircraft suddenly crossed right in front of our flight path, coming low and from the left. It was incredibly close and fast. We had no time to react.
Our aircraft does not have ADS-B in but I have a Sentry attached to my iPad so I was able to identify the plane as Aircraft Y.
This traffic had been holding short of the runway during our last landing and had taken off after us.
Due to his higher performance, he turned crosswind shortly after passing the numbers for 17. His crosswind intersected our downwind path.
I do not recall hearing a single radio call from him.
I made a radio call asking the same altitude traffic further out his intentions and informed Aircraft Y how he had almost collided with us and he said something about how he was just turning his crosswind.
The further out traffic gave us right of way so we landed and returned back to parking.
Aircraft Y flew an odd pattern, did a 360 on final before leaving the area just to turn back in to land.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 2183401
When you click on the link it will take you to the ASRS Online Database. Click on Report Number and put the ACN in the search box, then click Search. On that page, click on “view only the 1 most recent report.”
The AIM specifies that departing aircraft must maintain the runway heading until past the departure end and not make any turns below pattern altitude.
Departing aircraft that are remaining in the pattern should not make a turn until within 300 ft of pattern altitude.
ref.AIM section 4-3-3. [ per a contact with the FAA, absent a reg , the AIM will be enforced.]
So, don’t do stupid stuff.
We have seen this systemic problem coming for a long time now, and it is only getting worse and much more quickly.
We have a new generation of instructors and pilots who are married to their electronic devices on the ground, and that translates into people in airplanes trying to do what they now do in their cars, with similar results. Too many drivers are distracted, they wander across lanes, and they collide with other cars. Now it is airplanes.
Then add in all the countless UAV’s, and soon the legions of piloted and unpiloted vertical lift aircraft, and we have a real mess.
I do not have an immediate good solution for those of us who wish to survive, other than to be very careful to avoid situations fraught with peril, and to use every means possible to be aware of possible conflicting aircraft using our Mark I eyeballs and tools such as ADSB In, etc.
The real solution will be for all stakeholders to insist on a professional and immediate development of a plan for systems analysis and development, with the emphasis placed on the most important part of the systems development process: User Input.
In the 1980’s the FAA in Washington under apparent pressure from one airline executive summarily closed the LAX VFR corridor which caused hundreds of near miss incidents and likely impeding disaster. But the users – including GA and airline pilots, frontline ATC personnel, and others, were able to prevent such disasters by quickly mountng a massive protest and then working with FAA Administrator Alan McCartor to reinstate a modified, better corridor system, and to create the Southern California Airspace Users Working Group. This group then worked to create refinements for the Los Angeles metroplex airspace which still stand today. And later the group provided recommendations for the national airspace reclassification effort. AOPA adopted those recommendations and most were implemented by the FAA.
Similar groups were formed for other areas with complex situations.
We need – and soon – a National Airspace Users Working Group and a professional expert systems development entity to work with the FAA and all the stakeholders to come up with the next generation of airspace management and protocols to replace the hodgepodge of ways of managing conflicting airspace and aircraft that we have now.
I know that the aviation associations are pushing for improvements in ATC and that this will likely lead to new rules and legislation and a lot of money spent. I just hope is is a truly holistic approach and that the user input part of the process is properly emphasized.
Rol Murrow, founding member and 1980’s director of systems development, Southern California Airspace Users Working Group.
Nonsense. That long winded comment does nothing to prevent an arrogant high performance pilot not checking downwind before turning crosswind. This was a stupid pilot trick born of an arrogant attitude. That arrogance is what needs to be detected in training and grounded by the CFI before they spend their excess money trying to kill us all.