Narrative:

I was working ground control and also the flm. Local control had a C152; who was a first student solo. Local control also had an RV7; inbound from the northwest. Runway 31 was in use; and at [the airport] the preferred traffic pattern for touch-and-goes is right closed traffic for runway 31 due to the fly friendly program. Local control told the pilot of the C152 to extend upwind and tower would call his crosswind. The pilot did not read the instruction back so local control repeated the instruction. The C152 started a right turn and then asked if he could start his crosswind. Local control tried to get him back to the upwind to follow the RV7 but by this time the C152 was already starting a right downwind. The RV7 was well outside of the C152 also on right downwind. Local control then told the C152 to fly over the field for a left downwind but instead the C152 started a left turn which put him in proximity to the RV7. Local control asked the RV7 pilot if he had the C152 in sight and the pilot said that he did. The RV7 maneuvered to avoid the C152. Both the local controller and I saw the entire situation and the two aircraft did not appear to be in unsafe proximity to each other. The RV7 continued on a right downwind and the C152 eventually followed. The pilot of the RV7 called the tower about 10 minutes after he landed and sounded upset. He said that his heart was racing and that he and the C152 were within 'tens of feet' of each other. However; the pilot did not use the words near mid-air or near midair collision. I had already called the FBO where the C152 is based; and advised dispatch of what had happened with the student solo pilot. Because the RV7 pilot had called; I filed an mor under 'public inquiry.' I recommend to all my atcs that they not repeat the same instruction but instead; if an instruction doesn't appear to be clear the first time; issue an alternate instruction. In this case; the local controller could have said 'fly straight ahead' or 'fly present heading.' the local controller could have issued the RV7 traffic and told the C152 to follow the rv; or local control could have put the C152 in left closed traffic. The local FBO trains a large number of foreign pilots whose first language is not english. We here at [this airport] deal with this issue every day and have many techniques to help with the problems that arise. However; events like the one I described above are not unusual and may never be able to be eradicated given the combination of english language difficulties and low-time pilots. I do not feel it was a near midair collision nor a significant occurrence. [The airport] is a class delta airspace and a level 7 VFR tower. We have a lot of student training and VFR traffic so this kind of event is not unusual. While I do think local control could have handled the event more successfully; that does not mean I believe that the local controller did anything wrong or was not in compliance with national or local orders and notices.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower Supervisor described a reported NMAC in the traffic pattern when a student pilot with apparent limited English skills failed to extend upwind as instructed and conflicted with traffic entering downwind.

Narrative: I was working Ground Control and also the FLM. Local Control had a C152; who was a first student solo. Local Control also had an RV7; inbound from the northwest. Runway 31 was in use; and at [the airport] the preferred traffic pattern for touch-and-goes is right closed traffic for Runway 31 due to the fly friendly program. Local Control told the pilot of the C152 to extend upwind and Tower would call his crosswind. The pilot did not read the instruction back so Local Control repeated the instruction. The C152 started a right turn and then asked if he could start his crosswind. Local Control tried to get him back to the upwind to follow the RV7 but by this time the C152 was already starting a right downwind. The RV7 was well outside of the C152 also on right downwind. Local Control then told the C152 to fly over the field for a left downwind but instead the C152 started a left turn which put him in proximity to the RV7. Local Control asked the RV7 pilot if he had the C152 in sight and the pilot said that he did. The RV7 maneuvered to avoid the C152. Both the Local Controller and I saw the entire situation and the two aircraft did not appear to be in unsafe proximity to each other. The RV7 continued on a right downwind and the C152 eventually followed. The pilot of the RV7 called the Tower about 10 minutes after he landed and sounded upset. He said that his heart was racing and that he and the C152 were within 'tens of feet' of each other. However; the pilot did not use the words near mid-air or NMAC. I had already called the FBO where the C152 is based; and advised Dispatch of what had happened with the student solo pilot. Because the RV7 pilot had called; I filed an MOR under 'public inquiry.' I recommend to all my ATCs that they not repeat the same instruction but instead; if an instruction doesn't appear to be clear the first time; issue an alternate instruction. In this case; the Local Controller could have said 'fly straight ahead' or 'fly present heading.' The Local Controller could have issued the RV7 traffic and told the C152 to follow the RV; or Local Control could have put the C152 in left closed traffic. The local FBO trains a large number of foreign pilots whose first language is not English. We here at [this airport] deal with this issue every day and have many techniques to help with the problems that arise. However; events like the one I described above are not unusual and may never be able to be eradicated given the combination of English language difficulties and low-time pilots. I do not feel it was a NMAC nor a significant occurrence. [The airport] is a Class Delta airspace and a Level 7 VFR Tower. We have a lot of student training and VFR traffic so this kind of event is not unusual. While I do think Local Control could have handled the event more successfully; that does not mean I believe that the Local Controller did anything wrong or was not in compliance with national or local orders and notices.

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.