Narrative:

A potentially hazardous situation re: traffic patterns exists at many village airports in ak that do not have either control towers or FSS. FAA, through publications, inspector communications and even violation actions, has made it clear that far 91.127(B)(1)(new) is to be adhered to. This means that the pilot, when approaching an airport to land, must use a left-hand traffic pattern, unless otherwise indicated. The ak supplement is the official source of information concerning traffic patterns. Unless a right-hand pattern is indicated in the ak supplement, then a left-hand pattern is to be flown. Segmented circles are virtually nonexistent. It is frequently difficulty, dangerous or impossible to fly left-hand patterns at certain airports for certain runways, especially during marginal VFR WX conditions (low ceilings). This is due to: 1) the mtns or hills are physically in the way of a left-hand pattern, or if the village is built up on side and tops of the hills, then the aircraft comes in very close proximity to the houses and people (examples: russian mission, manokotak). This is very common. 2) in the cases, even with flat terrain, a left-hand pattern increases exposure of the associated village to overflying aircraft, both decreasing safety for those on the ground, and increasing noise (examples: togiak, ekwok, new koliganek). This is also very common. 3) the left-hand pattern unnecessarily takes the aircraft out over open water (examples: ekuk, hooper bay, togiak fish). In ak, the cold water temperatures, strong ocean currents and frequent rough sea conditions assure that an aircraft ditching due to engine failure, even if it is close to shore and equipped with life jackets, will result in loss of life. 4) the left-hand pattern often conflicts with traffic at another nearby airport. Frequently in ak, airports are located close enough for traffic pattern conflicts, and sometimes even their runways are as close as a few hundred ft from each other (examples: naknek-city, naknek-tibbetts). The issue is even further confused by the ak supplement listing different CTAF frequencys for nearby airports (examples: naknek-city, naknek-tibbetts, or togiak, togiak fish, twin hills). Local pilots know that all of the aircraft operating around closely spaced airports should be on the same frequency, and they usually know what that frequency is. A pilot not familiar with local operations, who consults the ak supplement will then be on the 'wrong' frequency. The probability that the see and avoid principle will always work is definitely improved with the proper use of the CTAF. Differences in traffic patterns being flown are very common. One pilot may be attempting to fly a pattern based on information from the ak supplement, while another may be flying a different pattern based on common sense. For reasons pointed out above, the 2 pilots may not even be using the same CTAF frequency! The local airport mgrs, who determine the traffic patterns to be flown, are frequently not interested, are unfamiliar with the far's, and are usually not even pilots. For several yrs the FAA has indicated that they expect the local commercial operators to work with the local airport airport mgrs to get the problem corrected. This is clearly not working at all, due to reasons related to the priorities of financial survival in a highly competitive market and the above described lack of interest on the part of the airport mgrs. What is needed is a statewide effort, led by FAA, possibly using an FAA/industry committee. This would avoid what would at best be a patchwork coverage of the problem, and would allow for specific predetermined standards to be applied at all airports in the state.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: REPORTER COMPLAINS THAT STANDARD TRAFFIC PATTERNS AT SOME AK ARPTS MAY NOT BE SAFE.

Narrative: A POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS SITUATION RE: TFC PATTERNS EXISTS AT MANY VILLAGE ARPTS IN AK THAT DO NOT HAVE EITHER CTL TWRS OR FSS. FAA, THROUGH PUBLICATIONS, INSPECTOR COMS AND EVEN VIOLATION ACTIONS, HAS MADE IT CLR THAT FAR 91.127(B)(1)(NEW) IS TO BE ADHERED TO. THIS MEANS THAT THE PLT, WHEN APCHING AN ARPT TO LAND, MUST USE A LEFT-HAND TFC PATTERN, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. THE AK SUPPLEMENT IS THE OFFICIAL SOURCE OF INFO CONCERNING TFC PATTERNS. UNLESS A RIGHT-HAND PATTERN IS INDICATED IN THE AK SUPPLEMENT, THEN A LEFT-HAND PATTERN IS TO BE FLOWN. SEGMENTED CIRCLES ARE VIRTUALLY NONEXISTENT. IT IS FREQUENTLY DIFFICULTY, DANGEROUS OR IMPOSSIBLE TO FLY LEFT-HAND PATTERNS AT CERTAIN ARPTS FOR CERTAIN RWYS, ESPECIALLY DURING MARGINAL VFR WX CONDITIONS (LOW CEILINGS). THIS IS DUE TO: 1) THE MTNS OR HILLS ARE PHYSICALLY IN THE WAY OF A LEFT-HAND PATTERN, OR IF THE VILLAGE IS BUILT UP ON SIDE AND TOPS OF THE HILLS, THEN THE ACFT COMES IN VERY CLOSE PROX TO THE HOUSES AND PEOPLE (EXAMPLES: RUSSIAN MISSION, MANOKOTAK). THIS IS VERY COMMON. 2) IN THE CASES, EVEN WITH FLAT TERRAIN, A LEFT-HAND PATTERN INCREASES EXPOSURE OF THE ASSOCIATED VILLAGE TO OVERFLYING ACFT, BOTH DECREASING SAFETY FOR THOSE ON THE GND, AND INCREASING NOISE (EXAMPLES: TOGIAK, EKWOK, NEW KOLIGANEK). THIS IS ALSO VERY COMMON. 3) THE LEFT-HAND PATTERN UNNECESSARILY TAKES THE ACFT OUT OVER OPEN WATER (EXAMPLES: EKUK, HOOPER BAY, TOGIAK FISH). IN AK, THE COLD WATER TEMPS, STRONG OCEAN CURRENTS AND FREQUENT ROUGH SEA CONDITIONS ASSURE THAT AN ACFT DITCHING DUE TO ENG FAILURE, EVEN IF IT IS CLOSE TO SHORE AND EQUIPPED WITH LIFE JACKETS, WILL RESULT IN LOSS OF LIFE. 4) THE LEFT-HAND PATTERN OFTEN CONFLICTS WITH TFC AT ANOTHER NEARBY ARPT. FREQUENTLY IN AK, ARPTS ARE LOCATED CLOSE ENOUGH FOR TFC PATTERN CONFLICTS, AND SOMETIMES EVEN THEIR RWYS ARE AS CLOSE AS A FEW HUNDRED FT FROM EACH OTHER (EXAMPLES: NAKNEK-CITY, NAKNEK-TIBBETTS). THE ISSUE IS EVEN FURTHER CONFUSED BY THE AK SUPPLEMENT LISTING DIFFERENT CTAF FREQS FOR NEARBY ARPTS (EXAMPLES: NAKNEK-CITY, NAKNEK-TIBBETTS, OR TOGIAK, TOGIAK FISH, TWIN HILLS). LCL PLTS KNOW THAT ALL OF THE ACFT OPERATING AROUND CLOSELY SPACED ARPTS SHOULD BE ON THE SAME FREQ, AND THEY USUALLY KNOW WHAT THAT FREQ IS. A PLT NOT FAMILIAR WITH LCL OPS, WHO CONSULTS THE AK SUPPLEMENT WILL THEN BE ON THE 'WRONG' FREQ. THE PROBABILITY THAT THE SEE AND AVOID PRINCIPLE WILL ALWAYS WORK IS DEFINITELY IMPROVED WITH THE PROPER USE OF THE CTAF. DIFFERENCES IN TFC PATTERNS BEING FLOWN ARE VERY COMMON. ONE PLT MAY BE ATTEMPTING TO FLY A PATTERN BASED ON INFO FROM THE AK SUPPLEMENT, WHILE ANOTHER MAY BE FLYING A DIFFERENT PATTERN BASED ON COMMON SENSE. FOR REASONS POINTED OUT ABOVE, THE 2 PLTS MAY NOT EVEN BE USING THE SAME CTAF FREQ! THE LCL ARPT MGRS, WHO DETERMINE THE TFC PATTERNS TO BE FLOWN, ARE FREQUENTLY NOT INTERESTED, ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE FAR'S, AND ARE USUALLY NOT EVEN PLTS. FOR SEVERAL YRS THE FAA HAS INDICATED THAT THEY EXPECT THE LCL COMMERCIAL OPERATORS TO WORK WITH THE LCL ARPT ARPT MGRS TO GET THE PROB CORRECTED. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT WORKING AT ALL, DUE TO REASONS RELATED TO THE PRIORITIES OF FINANCIAL SURVIVAL IN A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE MARKET AND THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LACK OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF THE ARPT MGRS. WHAT IS NEEDED IS A STATEWIDE EFFORT, LED BY FAA, POSSIBLY USING AN FAA/INDUSTRY COMMITTEE. THIS WOULD AVOID WHAT WOULD AT BEST BE A PATCHWORK COVERAGE OF THE PROB, AND WOULD ALLOW FOR SPECIFIC PREDETERMINED STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED AT ALL ARPTS IN THE STATE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.