Narrative:

I was departing runway 01L at ccr (concord; ca) with a student on an initial training flight. The concord class delta airspace changed to class golf airspace as soon as the tower shut down (at xa:00 due to an FAA-mandated reduction in ATC facility hours). The weather (as reported on the AWOS) indicated the wind was variable between direction 260 to direction 280 with a velocity of approximately 10 kts. The windsock confirmed this. Given runway 01L was a much less complex and shorter taxi from our position on the airport; I announced our taxi route over the common traffic advisory frequency and proceeded to runway 01L. Upon completion of the run-up; I heard an aircraft on frequency indicate their position was at the shoreline (approximately a 4-mile final on runway 19R) and their intention was to fly a straight-in for runway 19R. The aircraft acknowledged my presence of holding short of runway 01L and announced over the radio that; should I depart runway 01L; they would likely not be a factor. After a short delay (maybe one-minute; although I cannot remember exactly how long); consisting of reviewing the checklist and briefing the departure; I announced that I was departing runway 01L and would offset my departure with an early right-hand turn; so as to ensure I was not a conflict for the traffic inbound to concord on the straight-in runway 19R approach. At this time; the aircraft on the straight-in approach announced on frequency that they were approaching the 'pond;' or approximately a two-mile final. I decided sufficient spacing existed; and proceeded with the departure. As we rotated; I could see the landing light of the inbound aircraft to runway 19R; and made a right-hand 30-degree departure; departing on a heading of approximately 040. While I maintained visual contact with the aircraft on final approach for runway 19R at all times; I feel there was a loss of separation between the two aircraft. As indicated in the report; I believe we were about 500 ft. Apart from one another; with vertical separation of 100-200 ft. While this event did not cause the inbound aircraft to execute a go-around or alter their approach; I believe an incident like this can be prevented going forward. Here are a few of my reflections: in reviewing this incident; I should have never departed with opposite direction traffic within 4-miles of the airport. Second; I was in absolutely no rush and should have held short of runway 01L until the inbound traffic was on the ground and clear of the runway. Third; I could have elected to use runway 19R; the runway that seemed to be slightly favored by other aircraft before and after this event; despite the more difficult and longer taxi. Fourth; it would have been prudent of me to verify the inbound aircraft's position before departing; this would have ensured minimal ambiguity as to the position of the aircraft given the infrequency of traditional position reporting at an uncontrolled field (additionally; I have never flown [that type of aircraft]; the inbound aircraft; and realized that they have a much higher groundspeed than a C172; thus covering more ground and getting to the airport more quickly than I would have guessed). I spoke with the pilot of whom was piloting the aircraft inbound and we agreed that my actions compromised safety. I am reviewing FAA-related publications on decision making; uncontrolled airport operations; and proper aircraft communication techniques to ensure this does not happen again. Additionally; I will seek mentoring from a more experienced flight instructor about how to best address this incident and learn from my mistake.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 Instructor reported a NMAC with an opposite landing aircraft.

Narrative: I was departing Runway 01L at CCR (Concord; CA) with a student on an initial training flight. The Concord class delta airspace changed to class golf airspace as soon as the tower shut down (at XA:00 due to an FAA-mandated reduction in ATC facility hours). The weather (as reported on the AWOS) indicated the wind was variable between direction 260 to direction 280 with a velocity of approximately 10 kts. The windsock confirmed this. Given Runway 01L was a much less complex and shorter taxi from our position on the airport; I announced our taxi route over the common traffic advisory frequency and proceeded to Runway 01L. Upon completion of the run-up; I heard an aircraft on frequency indicate their position was at the shoreline (approximately a 4-mile final on Runway 19R) and their intention was to fly a straight-in for Runway 19R. The aircraft acknowledged my presence of holding short of Runway 01L and announced over the radio that; should I depart Runway 01L; they would likely not be a factor. After a short delay (maybe one-minute; although I cannot remember exactly how long); consisting of reviewing the checklist and briefing the departure; I announced that I was departing Runway 01L and would offset my departure with an early right-hand turn; so as to ensure I was not a conflict for the traffic inbound to Concord on the straight-in Runway 19R approach. At this time; the aircraft on the straight-in approach announced on frequency that they were approaching the 'pond;' or approximately a two-mile final. I decided sufficient spacing existed; and proceeded with the departure. As we rotated; I could see the landing light of the inbound aircraft to Runway 19R; and made a right-hand 30-degree departure; departing on a heading of approximately 040. While I maintained visual contact with the aircraft on final approach for Runway 19R at all times; I feel there was a loss of separation between the two aircraft. As indicated in the report; I believe we were about 500 ft. apart from one another; with vertical separation of 100-200 ft. While this event did not cause the inbound aircraft to execute a go-around or alter their approach; I believe an incident like this can be prevented going forward. Here are a few of my reflections: in reviewing this incident; I should have never departed with opposite direction traffic within 4-miles of the airport. Second; I was in absolutely no rush and should have held short of Runway 01L until the inbound traffic was on the ground and clear of the runway. Third; I could have elected to use Runway 19R; the runway that seemed to be slightly favored by other aircraft before and after this event; despite the more difficult and longer taxi. Fourth; it would have been prudent of me to verify the inbound aircraft's position before departing; this would have ensured minimal ambiguity as to the position of the aircraft given the infrequency of traditional position reporting at an uncontrolled field (additionally; I have never flown [that type of aircraft]; the inbound aircraft; and realized that they have a much higher groundspeed than a C172; thus covering more ground and getting to the airport more quickly than I would have guessed). I spoke with the pilot of whom was piloting the aircraft inbound and we agreed that my actions compromised safety. I am reviewing FAA-related publications on decision making; uncontrolled airport operations; and proper aircraft communication techniques to ensure this does not happen again. Additionally; I will seek mentoring from a more experienced flight instructor about how to best address this incident and learn from my mistake.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.