Near midair collision in traffic pattern.

Attributes
ACN	188472
Time
Date	199109
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : apa
State Reference	CO
Altitude	msl bound lower : 6800 msl bound upper : 6800
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : apa tower : bdl
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft
Flight Phase	other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	VFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : private pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 20 flight time total : 600 flight time type : 400
ASRS Report	188472
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Events
Anomaly	conflict : nmac non adherence : clearance non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : insufficient time
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 0 vertical : 100
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

*3 aircraft were reporting to tower for entry to runway 17L. 2 were to call abeam tower, left downwind. The third was on a practice instrument approach to 35R and told to report a missed approach and to then join in downwind and report abeam. Reporter, aircraft Y, assumed third aircraft was well to rear and concentrated on spotting #1 aircraft X ahead. #3 aircraft Z was seen when he pulled across and above by 100 ft joining the downwind. Aircraft Z was a high wing small aircraft. Aircraft Y (reporter's) was a low wing. Reporter feels that his low wing obstructed vision on aircraft Z. Reporter criticizes tower for not using better ATC practices. Tower did not do a good job of coordinating the traffic entering its air traffic area. She had 3 planes all converging to the same spot and did not recognize the potential for conflict, nor visually identing the 3 planes, although it should have been easy to do so. I suggest that tower not direct 2 planes to the same spot in the pattern without visual contact. It would be best to request reports from all pilots prior to entering the pattern, so each will know the other's position. Tower needs to be alert and have visual contact with arriving aircraft to prevent collision.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC IN TFC PATTERN.

Narrative: *3 ACFT WERE RPTING TO TWR FOR ENTRY TO RWY 17L. 2 WERE TO CALL ABEAM TWR, L DOWNWIND. THE THIRD WAS ON A PRACTICE INST APCH TO 35R AND TOLD TO RPT A MISSED APCH AND TO THEN JOIN IN DOWNWIND AND RPT ABEAM. RPTR, ACFT Y, ASSUMED THIRD ACFT WAS WELL TO REAR AND CONCENTRATED ON SPOTTING #1 ACFT X AHEAD. #3 ACFT Z WAS SEEN WHEN HE PULLED ACROSS AND ABOVE BY 100 FT JOINING THE DOWNWIND. ACFT Z WAS A HIGH WING SMA. ACFT Y (RPTR'S) WAS A LOW WING. RPTR FEELS THAT HIS LOW WING OBSTRUCTED VISION ON ACFT Z. RPTR CRITICIZES TWR FOR NOT USING BETTER ATC PRACTICES. TWR DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF COORDINATING THE TFC ENTERING ITS ATA. SHE HAD 3 PLANES ALL CONVERGING TO THE SAME SPOT AND DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT, NOR VISUALLY IDENTING THE 3 PLANES, ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO DO SO. I SUGGEST THAT TWR NOT DIRECT 2 PLANES TO THE SAME SPOT IN THE PATTERN WITHOUT VISUAL CONTACT. IT WOULD BE BEST TO REQUEST RPTS FROM ALL PLTS PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PATTERN, SO EACH WILL KNOW THE OTHER'S POS. TWR NEEDS TO BE ALERT AND HAVE VISUAL CONTACT WITH ARRIVING ACFT TO PREVENT COLLISION.

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.