Narrative:

I was acting as flight instructor in an small aircraft a. Student recent private pilot transitioning from small aircraft B involved in short field takeoff procedures. Completed several takeoffs and lndgs, runway 5, left traffic. Little traffic in pattern. My aircraft instructed position and hold runway 5, departing traffic on 14, left closed traffic. Taxied into position, other aircraft was cleared to takeoff after some delay, additional delay while tower dealt with traffic transitioning the air traffic area. I was then cleared to takeoff. At some point, tower called my position to another aircraft as departing runway 5, left closed traffic. Was unclr to me where this other aircraft was, possibly an inbound to the airport. Discovered after the incident, other traffic was an small aircraft B who departed 14 and was turning onto downwind. I was unaware of the presence of this traffic. No TA was issued to me after my takeoff clearance. My student flew a normal pattern, turning crosswind, continuing to climb to pattern altitude (1500 ft), underneath the small aircraft B on its downwind leg. Small aircraft B was not seen by myself or my student. High wings blocked vision where small aircraft B probably was prior to our turn to crosswind. We were the only 2 airplanes in the pattern. As we reached 1500 ft MSL, student lowered nose, raised left wing to clear traffic, and discovered the small aircraft B at our altitude within 100 ft horizontal, abeam our left wing in straight and level flight, same direction. I queried tower as to the intentions of the traffic. Reply was 'I called out that traffic for you', referring to the advisory given while I was still on the taxiway prior to takeoff. Lacking information on the intentions of the small aircraft B I evaded with a right 270 with tower approval. I visited tower cabin attendant, to get impression of the controller involved. His statements: 1) the advisory he gave me on the taxiway met legal requirements and 'his ass was covered'. 2) a previous complaint lodged by me about the tower was the reason for providing min advisories. 3) I was supposed to be listening to transmissions from the tower to others, and know where they were. 4) he knew that I was aboard, as an instructor, and as the conflict developed though my flight path was unusual with respect to that of the _______. His attitude was hostile, and the above statements are not intended as direct quotes but are paraphrased to best of my recollection. Tower controller watched a life threatening conversion of 2 aircraft develop, and chose not to provide separation or advisories to one of the aircraft. The human factor involved included the controller allowing a previous complaint to interfere with common sense, good judgement, concern for safety and standard practice in this unsafe controling situation. Under other conditions an advisory would have been issued to the departing small aircraft after this takeoff.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA IN PATTERN HAS NMAC WITH SECOND SMA.

Narrative: I WAS ACTING AS FLT INSTRUCTOR IN AN SMA A. STUDENT RECENT PRIVATE PLT TRANSITIONING FROM SMA B INVOLVED IN SHORT FIELD TKOF PROCS. COMPLETED SEVERAL TKOFS AND LNDGS, RWY 5, L TFC. LITTLE TFC IN PATTERN. MY ACFT INSTRUCTED POS AND HOLD RWY 5, DEPARTING TFC ON 14, L CLOSED TFC. TAXIED INTO POS, OTHER ACFT WAS CLRED TO TKOF AFTER SOME DELAY, ADDITIONAL DELAY WHILE TWR DEALT WITH TFC TRANSITIONING THE ATA. I WAS THEN CLRED TO TKOF. AT SOME POINT, TWR CALLED MY POS TO ANOTHER ACFT AS DEPARTING RWY 5, L CLOSED TFC. WAS UNCLR TO ME WHERE THIS OTHER ACFT WAS, POSSIBLY AN INBOUND TO THE ARPT. DISCOVERED AFTER THE INCIDENT, OTHER TFC WAS AN SMA B WHO DEPARTED 14 AND WAS TURNING ONTO DOWNWIND. I WAS UNAWARE OF THE PRESENCE OF THIS TFC. NO TA WAS ISSUED TO ME AFTER MY TKOF CLRNC. MY STUDENT FLEW A NORMAL PATTERN, TURNING XWIND, CONTINUING TO CLB TO PATTERN ALT (1500 FT), UNDERNEATH THE SMA B ON ITS DOWNWIND LEG. SMA B WAS NOT SEEN BY MYSELF OR MY STUDENT. HIGH WINGS BLOCKED VISION WHERE SMA B PROBABLY WAS PRIOR TO OUR TURN TO XWIND. WE WERE THE ONLY 2 AIRPLANES IN THE PATTERN. AS WE REACHED 1500 FT MSL, STUDENT LOWERED NOSE, RAISED L WING TO CLR TFC, AND DISCOVERED THE SMA B AT OUR ALT WITHIN 100 FT HORIZ, ABEAM OUR L WING IN STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLT, SAME DIRECTION. I QUERIED TWR AS TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE TFC. REPLY WAS 'I CALLED OUT THAT TFC FOR YOU', REFERRING TO THE ADVISORY GIVEN WHILE I WAS STILL ON THE TAXIWAY PRIOR TO TKOF. LACKING INFO ON THE INTENTIONS OF THE SMA B I EVADED WITH A R 270 WITH TWR APPROVAL. I VISITED TWR CAB, TO GET IMPRESSION OF THE CTLR INVOLVED. HIS STATEMENTS: 1) THE ADVISORY HE GAVE ME ON THE TAXIWAY MET LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND 'HIS ASS WAS COVERED'. 2) A PREVIOUS COMPLAINT LODGED BY ME ABOUT THE TWR WAS THE REASON FOR PROVIDING MIN ADVISORIES. 3) I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LISTENING TO TRANSMISSIONS FROM THE TWR TO OTHERS, AND KNOW WHERE THEY WERE. 4) HE KNEW THAT I WAS ABOARD, AS AN INSTRUCTOR, AND AS THE CONFLICT DEVELOPED THOUGH MY FLT PATH WAS UNUSUAL WITH RESPECT TO THAT OF THE _______. HIS ATTITUDE WAS HOSTILE, AND THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE NOT INTENDED AS DIRECT QUOTES BUT ARE PARAPHRASED TO BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. TWR CTLR WATCHED A LIFE THREATENING CONVERSION OF 2 ACFT DEVELOP, AND CHOSE NOT TO PROVIDE SEPARATION OR ADVISORIES TO ONE OF THE ACFT. THE HUMAN FACTOR INVOLVED INCLUDED THE CTLR ALLOWING A PREVIOUS COMPLAINT TO INTERFERE WITH COMMON SENSE, GOOD JUDGEMENT, CONCERN FOR SAFETY AND STANDARD PRACTICE IN THIS UNSAFE CTLING SITUATION. UNDER OTHER CONDITIONS AN ADVISORY WOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE DEPARTING SMA AFTER THIS TKOF.

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.