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 approaching to land the Cessna 182 after calling 10 miles, 5 miles, and then 45° entry to left downwind for the runway. While on final approach I made multiple calls, including 2 mile final.
Shortly after this a G-IV declared he was departing after landing traffic.
It started to roll onto the runway while I was between 75-100 feet AGL. I radioed that I was short final and the G-IV pilot nonetheless declared he was departing.
This forced an unsafe go-around, with the G-IV on the roll directly underneath me as I tried to climb up before initiating a turn out.
The ATC audio recordings clearly show that this violation of landing aircraft right of way was INTENTIONAL. It was dangerous for both aircraft.
This was witnessed by several other aircraft, including Aircraft Z, which was doing pattern work. This was intentional, flagrant, and dangerous.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 2231945
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.”
Many unanswered questions for me. First, who recorded CTAF at a class Golf airport? Don’t believe that is done. I’d like to hear it. Nobody pays attention to a 10 or 5 mile call at a class Golf, that’s for class Delta and above. First call should be maybe a mile out on the 45, otherwise you are a distraction from the actual traffic. He announced downwind then flew over 2 miles away from the airport. Who does that? Usual pattern would have been maybe a half mile downwind at most. There were other planes in the pattern. Obviously the landing traffic he referred to was one of them. Probably never saw the 182 because he had left the area. If he was at 75 agl may not be too visible. Intentional? Nobody would put their 60 million dollar jet in jeopardy to save a minute but should have been more alert to where everyone was. I’m guessing the 182 uses mostly controlled fields and is not completely familiar with, possibly uncomfortable, at tower free ones.
“Nobody pays attention to a 10 or 5 mile call at a class Golf, that’s for class Delta and above. First call should be maybe a mile out on the 45, otherwise you are a distraction from the actual traffic.”
No.
Please review: AC 90-66C Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66C.pdf
Are too many pilots opening ASRS reports?
I will suggest they are. There are so many petty issues, the one here is OK but really kind of useless. Like calling 911 to report a blue SUV cut me off at the freeway on ramp?
I’m am for better use of ASRS. It is not “get out of jail free card”, nor is it the “citizen complaint line”. It is for stuff where something is different, non-standard and fixable.
If there are too many useless ASRS reports, they will all get ignored at some point.
Lets see how long it is before someone adds “Not Enough Hangar space at my airport affects safety”. Now I have to go search and see if there is one already like that!
I agree-100%-that the ASRS program has probably drifted from its original intent and suffers from some ‘mission creep’, based on the number & types of incidents being reported.
Don’t forget, ASRS is not just limited to ‘pilots’ either. Given the size of the NASA staff assigned to administer it (two folks at Moffett Field, if I’m not mistaken); I just hope we don’t overload it to the point it goes away.
Even though they always present just “one side of the story”…even if another aircraft wasn’t involved…there are usually ‘lessons learned’ buried in them. What is interesting is how commenters choose to interpret these.
What is disturbing is how some folks are willing to act as judge, jury, and executioner based on the limited, one-sided, often vague information presented. Sometimes the verdict seems obvious, but these reports are always missing something.
(The same could be said for the NTSB Final Reports: That’s why they produce “Probable Causes”.)
Regardless, I still enjoy learning from folks that offer well thought out, measured, informed responses.
OTOH, the flippant, banal, and inane ones just take up space.
Sadly if you go to the complete ASRS report there is not much more info. But the Synopsis pretty much says it all.
Synopsis
C182R pilot reported a runway incursion by another aircraft while on short final at a non-towered airport. Pilot executed go-around.
With only one side of the story we know part of the story, did the other pilot make a mistake? Sounds like it, he should have seen the plane on short final. But did he hear the pilot on CTAF? Maybe, maybe not. The reporting pilot says he was going to take off anyway. “Aircraft Y nonetheless declared he was departing”, so I will take that to mean on CTAF.
Note for VFR only pilots: At non-towered fields aircraft departing IFR are likely getting their IFR Clearance and IFR Release from ATC either via radio (different frequency) or cell phone. This may mean they are not on CTAF frequency while the get their “IFR Release” thus missing prior conversations over CTAF. However the IFR aircraft still must follow all the rules!
But unlike the VFR guy who has been listening to CTAF since he started up, taxied and did a run-up, that may not be the case for the IFR traffic who may have been off frequency a portion of the time. **This can also include inbound IFR where ATC holds the IFR traffic on an approach frequency longer than one would like, usually for other conflicting traffic.**
All I will say is don’t assume anyone heard your CTAF call. [There are those NORDO guys out there too, but that is a bigger topic.]
Let’s look at the big picture for a moment: we have an uncontrolled airport that is mixing G-IV and C-182 traffic. It doesn’t seem that a pilot practicing pattern work could, as a courtesy, extend the downwind a couple miles (or depart the pattern), to allow the G-IV to launch.
That said, the G-IV pilot should be sanctioned.
OK, so few pilots are as pigheaded and seld centered as the report portrays the G-IV pilot. So, I have to wonder why did he push his way into traffic to depart? Was the pattern clogged with 4 plans going round and round not allowing him to depart, potentially causing him to lose an IFR slot and nobody had the common courtesy to make room to allow him depart? Thats not an uncommon situation. I know I have sat on the taxiway idling in a line of traffic while 4 or 5 planes made continuous rounds of crash and dash effectively leaving everyone else sitting thre steaming. Think about your own lack of awareness, and while technically legal, may have contributed. A little bit of courtesy goes a long ways towards preventing these types of interactions. The report reads like a road rager whining about “But he cut me off.”
AS
As I tirelessly point out: on land, that would be a reckless driving offense. In the air: nothing. What will it take? My guess: a fireball wreck involving a VIP with connections and lawyers. That’ll get their attention.
Regards/J