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.
We were on a short final for Runway XX to ZZZ. We were doing the VOR XX approach and we were at 1,400 MSL.
This flight was a training flight for my instrument training. I had the hood on and my instructor was the safety pilot.
The Falcon pilot decided to disregard our radio calls and descend on top of us, getting as close as 200 feet above us, then cutting us off on our final.
They might have been closer. I saw the landing gear and underbelly of the plane in the reflection of my iPad.
We made a 10 mile call, a 5 mile call, and a 2 mile final call and all were disregarded.
The Falcon pilot was extremely unprofessional over the radio. We intended on landing and they overtook us on final and we had to break off our approach.
ATC shouldn’t allow them to fly visual approaches if they can’t avoid traffic in the pattern.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 2231955
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.”
If one breaks down the report it becomes obvious the jet was clearly at fault for the near miss. The aircraft on final reported being at 1,400’ on “short final”. Their last call was at two miles. When exactly the jet flew over cannot be determined but it was between two miles and the end of the runway. The plane on final announced their intention to land. At two miles or closer, the fact they were practicing an instrument approach, is not relevant. They were in fact on final to land. The jet was conducting a visual approach. The pilot landing reported communicating with the jet their intention but it went ignored. What was exactly said was not reported but it clearly established the fact the two did communicate with each other while on final approach. The aircraft on short final, for all practical purposes, had the right of way. Granted, the aircraft on short final could have aborted their landing to allow for the jet to continue but they chose not to. Regardless, the jet should not have bullied its way coming within 200’ of the aircraft on short final. Personally, I would have aborted the approach and circled left to reenter the pattern. My biggest fear in flying is being hit from behind.
I think it’s best to be humble and safe at all times….As a Licensed Ships Captain there is the law of “safe speed”. You are not allowed to go faster than being able to prevent an accident and must reduce or stop your vessel to prevent an accident. It there is an accident both ships are at fault because they broke the “safe speed law”.
Seems there is a lot we don’t know. Even if you go read the full report.
Weather is excellent VFR.
We have airplane #1 doing piston single doing a practice Instrument Approach under VFR rules. He says he is making radio calls, does anyone hear him? We assume yes, but wrong frequency, has a terrible radio or a real radio problem that can happen occasionally.
We have airplane #2, a jet flying on an IFR flight plan. Was he on a visual approach or an actual LPV or other approach? We don’t really know, could have been either. Does it matter, not directly as it is VMC so see and avoid is required. Could he have been on Approach Frequency when the airplane #1 was making his radio calls? Maybe? Could he have been on the wrong CTAF frequency? We don’t really know.
At some point it sounds like they were talking with each other as airplane #1 says airplane #2 was rude. I will say in order for this to be of much use, we really need both sides of the story. Too many questions and only 1 side of the story. Was there 12 planes in the pattern as well? Was there several runways at the airport?
Strange to me: If I am flying under the hood a practice approach in VMC and my safety pilot is no more aware a jet than what it sounds like this one was, I’m not flying with him anymore.
Overall: Flying practice approaches at non-towered fields is one of the things I see conflicts happen the most. I live in a large metro area and if you select the wrong non-towered field to do practice approaches at you are making everyone life miserable. Especially opposite direction approaches. Go a few more miles away and there are usually more airports to choose from without so much traffic.
You must always remember the Falcon pilot arived at the airport the same way most all pilots do .. bye a car and we all know the mind set of drivers on the highway, that carries over into the pilots seat.
A typical one-sided “you had to be there ASRS report.
“ATC shouldn’t allow them to fly visual approaches if they can’t avoid traffic in the pattern.”
As already mentioned…traffic on a straight-in…any straight-in…is never “in the pattern”.
Not that it matters:
But what are the chances the Falcon was on an IFR FP & had been “cleared” for an approach by ATC, while the our reporting ‘crew’ was the one sneaking in on a practice approach and wedged themselves onto final ahead of the jet?
In that case, I could imagine some unprofessional language from the Falcon.
I’m trying to image the ‘merge’ that resulted in a “200’ NMAC” on ‘short final’. I’m pretty sure the Cirrus & Falcon didn’t drag race in from 10 miles out. The “seeing” the jet’s reflection on his/her iPad is concerning: I’d really hope the CFI “safety pilot” would have the student take off the hood earlier when there appeared to be a conflict developing.
Unfortunately, there’s not a separate FAR for jet traffic and another for light aircraft in this scenario. If the Falcon cut off the training aircraft in the pattern, he was wrong, period.
Reference 91.113(b)(f)(g)
Sorry, but in this instance, there’s a reg for that.
The rude jet pilot jeopardized life and property with apparent disregard for either. Cuff him and lock him up for starters. Regards/J
Kick his a*** for starters!!!!!!!!!
Probably unpopular opinion but I think local training needs to stay out of the way of transient aircraft, especially higher performance. And when I was training it wasn’t unusual for ATC to turn us out of the way.
If he was on a VOR approach making 10, 5, and 2 mile calls, then he wasn’t ‘in the pattern’ as he claims. Treating jets like they are just another C172 that has to wait their turn is usually not going to work. Do you really think a jet is good with making a low altitude 360? When I hear one coming, I stay out of their way. That has always worked well.
What Warren said.
If doing Practice Approaches ATC will inform you when unable to provide TRAFFIC info