Narrative:

Following a touch-and-go; my skyhawk was climbing upwind. A second skyhawk was cleared for takeoff after we rotated. We turned crosswind at 700 ft AGL and downwind shortly thereafter. On our downwind leg; we saw the other skyhawk that departed behind us on its crosswind leg. The other skyhawk was climbing and appeared to be departing the class D airspace. Although the other skyhawk was already 50 to 100 ft above us; we decided to descend 100 ft to increase vertical spacing. After the conflict was resolved; we continued downwind at our original altitude; 1;000 ft AGL. Upon continuing to fly our right downwind leg; we learned that the other skyhawk was also remaining in the right hand traffic pattern. Furthermore; we heard the other pilot request a full-stop landing. We were mid-field downwind and attempting to request a touch-and-go clearance; but due to the conversation between the other skyhawk and ATC; we were unable to request the desired clearance until we were abeam the runway numbers. ATC advised us that there was another skyhawk on downwind; and asked us if we were the closest or farthest skyhawk from the airport. We responded that we were probably closer because we could not see another airplane to our right. After the response; we noticed the other skyhawk off to our left flying a wider traffic pattern than us.ATC cleared us for touch-and-go; but we blocked their clearance with a query about turning base (discovered later after we listened to a recording of the tower's frequency). The tower then cleared the other skyhawk for landing; #2; following company traffic that was turning base ahead. Therefore; we turned base and lost sight of the other skyhawk to our [left]; however; the other skyhawk responded that he had us in sight. When we turned final; I asked the tower to clarify that we were cleared for touch-and-go. The tower communicated confusion; about which airplane was us; and asked if we could see traffic off to our right. I looked outside our window and saw our company dutches (aircraft #3) on downwind abeam our position; so I replied; 'affirmative; we have the downwind traffic in sight.' the tower stated; 'no; that's not him. Your traffic is behind you;' and then finally confirmed that we were cleared for the touch-and-go; #1. Soon thereafter; the tower asked us to execute a go-around. When we executed the go-around; we saw the other skyhawk overtake us on the left; and his right wingtip was less than one-half a wingspan from our left wingtip. At this point in time; I called tower to report a near mid-air collision.upon landing; I had a chance to speak with the tower controller; the company's chief pilot; and the pilot of the dutches. I learned from the chief pilot that the pilot of the other skyhawk was a student pilot on his first solo; and I had a chance to speak with the student's instructor. We all listened to a recording of the moments leading up to the event and discovered that the student pilot flying the skyhawk was reporting us in sight on at least two occasions. Either the student pilot was lying or we had [been] mistaken for another airplane that was; according to him; departing the opposite direction runway. However; there were no aircraft of any kind using any other runways. I believe there were several contributing factors that led to this near mid-air collision. First; the student pilot's lack of situational awareness; which caused him to miss report traffic as; 'in sight;' when either it wasn't or other traffic was actually sighted. Second the controller's lack of situational awareness which caused him to confuse aircraft in the traffic pattern [and] then the absence of a local radar services (i.e. TRSA) at an airport with plenty of traffic which would enable ATC to clearly manage its traffic [and] lastly the lack of assignment of a discrete transponder code for multiple targets in the airport's traffic pattern. This particular airport has experienced a large increase in volume of training flights over the past few years. Most of these training flights involve students that are foreign nationals whose first language is not english. I cannot overstress the benefits that a TRSA would serve in assisting the local pilots and controllers with keeping traffic separated from one another; especially in the terminal environment.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 instructor pilot describes the events leading up to a NMAC with another C172 piloted by a student pilot on his first solo flight. A report from the solo student's instructor is also included.

Narrative: Following a touch-and-go; my Skyhawk was climbing upwind. A second Skyhawk was cleared for takeoff after we rotated. We turned crosswind at 700 FT AGL and downwind shortly thereafter. On our downwind leg; we saw the other Skyhawk that departed behind us on its crosswind leg. The other Skyhawk was climbing and appeared to be departing the Class D airspace. Although the other Skyhawk was already 50 to 100 FT above us; we decided to descend 100 FT to increase vertical spacing. After the conflict was resolved; we continued downwind at our original altitude; 1;000 FT AGL. Upon continuing to fly our right downwind leg; we learned that the other Skyhawk was also remaining in the right hand traffic pattern. Furthermore; we heard the other pilot request a full-stop landing. We were mid-field downwind and attempting to request a touch-and-go clearance; but due to the conversation between the other Skyhawk and ATC; we were unable to request the desired clearance until we were abeam the runway numbers. ATC advised us that there was another Skyhawk on downwind; and asked us if we were the closest or farthest Skyhawk from the airport. We responded that we were probably closer because we could not see another airplane to our right. After the response; we noticed the other Skyhawk off to our left flying a wider traffic pattern than us.ATC cleared us for touch-and-go; but we blocked their clearance with a query about turning base (discovered later after we listened to a recording of the Tower's frequency). The Tower then cleared the other Skyhawk for landing; #2; following company traffic that was turning base ahead. Therefore; we turned base and lost sight of the other Skyhawk to our [left]; however; the other Skyhawk responded that he had us in sight. When we turned final; I asked the Tower to clarify that we were cleared for touch-and-go. The Tower communicated confusion; about which airplane was us; and asked if we could see traffic off to our right. I looked outside our window and saw our company Dutches (aircraft #3) on downwind abeam our position; so I replied; 'Affirmative; we have the downwind traffic in sight.' The Tower stated; 'No; that's not him. Your traffic is behind you;' and then finally confirmed that we were cleared for the touch-and-go; #1. Soon thereafter; the Tower asked us to execute a go-around. When we executed the go-around; we saw the other Skyhawk overtake us on the left; and his right wingtip was less than one-half a wingspan from our left wingtip. At this point in time; I called Tower to report a near mid-air collision.Upon landing; I had a chance to speak with the Tower Controller; the company's Chief Pilot; and the pilot of the Dutches. I learned from the Chief Pilot that the pilot of the other Skyhawk was a student pilot on his first solo; and I had a chance to speak with the student's instructor. We all listened to a recording of the moments leading up to the event and discovered that the student pilot flying the Skyhawk was reporting us in sight on at least two occasions. Either the student pilot was lying or we had [been] mistaken for another airplane that was; according to him; departing the opposite direction runway. However; there were no aircraft of any kind using any other runways. I believe there were several contributing factors that led to this near mid-air collision. First; the student pilot's lack of situational awareness; which caused him to miss report traffic as; 'in sight;' when either it wasn't or other traffic was actually sighted. Second the Controller's lack of situational awareness which caused him to confuse aircraft in the traffic pattern [and] then the absence of a local radar services (i.e. TRSA) at an airport with plenty of traffic which would enable ATC to clearly manage its traffic [and] lastly the lack of assignment of a discrete transponder code for multiple targets in the airport's traffic pattern. This particular airport has experienced a large increase in volume of training flights over the past few years. Most of these training flights involve students that are foreign nationals whose first language is not English. I cannot overstress the benefits that a TRSA would serve in assisting the local pilots and controllers with keeping traffic separated from one another; especially in the terminal environment.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.