37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 235403 |
Time | |
Date | 199302 |
Day | Sun |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : o31 |
State Reference | CA |
Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | general aviation : instructional |
Make Model Name | Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear |
Flight Phase | ground other : taxi |
Flight Plan | VFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Operator | general aviation : personal |
Make Model Name | Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear |
Flight Phase | landing other |
Flight Plan | None |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | instruction : instructor |
Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : cfi |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 190 flight time total : 1600 flight time type : 700 |
ASRS Report | 235403 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | instruction : trainee |
Qualification | pilot : student |
Events | |
Anomaly | conflict : ground critical incursion : runway non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far other spatial deviation |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa other other : unspecified |
Resolutory Action | flight crew : exited adverse environment flight crew : took evasive action |
Consequence | Other |
Miss Distance | horizontal : 200 vertical : 0 |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
The student and I were on the third circuit while doing stop and go lndgs at an uncontrolled field (healdsburg, ca). During each leg my student was making his position report on the radio and even indicated stop and go during final. After touchdown we came to a stop, announced that we were going to back-taxi, and would have, had I not seen a plane flairing at the numbers 1000 ft behind us. I took the controls and accelerated down the runway to avoid the conflict. After turning around at the end of the 2700 ft strip, the pilot of the small aircraft sel tried to lecture me on why I should not have been on the runway while he was landing, and I assured him that we had the right-of-way since we landed in front of him, and if he communicated his intentions while we were working the circuit we would have proceeded to the end where they had a turn-around. He mentioned he was communicating but that he did not hear us. God only knows if he was communicating or not but his radio seemed to work real well when he got on the ground. Aside from the rules that state who has the right-of-way, it shows that in an environment of uncontrolled airspace (that does not require radios to begin with) forces the instructor to be very diligent with what traffic could exist. Stop-and-go lndgs puts one in a vulnerable situation since one takes for granted that if no one is talking on the radio, then no one is around. It is obvious to me that I should rethink my lesson plan while performing these type of lndgs, and be more aware of the surroundings and not be lulled into complacency that we are the only one communicating on the radio, therefore we are the only one. As for the small aircraft sel pilot, he didn't have an emergency and he didn't understand his responsibility. What compelled him to land with us on the runway shows a lack of good judgement. I wish his passenger well!
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: PLT OF SMA ACFT LAND ON RWY AT AN UNCTLED ARPT WHILE ANOTHER ACFT HAD JUST LANDED AND WAS STILL ON THE RWY.
Narrative: THE STUDENT AND I WERE ON THE THIRD CIRCUIT WHILE DOING STOP AND GO LNDGS AT AN UNCTLED FIELD (HEALDSBURG, CA). DURING EACH LEG MY STUDENT WAS MAKING HIS POS RPT ON THE RADIO AND EVEN INDICATED STOP AND GO DURING FINAL. AFTER TOUCHDOWN WE CAME TO A STOP, ANNOUNCED THAT WE WERE GOING TO BACK-TAXI, AND WOULD HAVE, HAD I NOT SEEN A PLANE FLAIRING AT THE NUMBERS 1000 FT BEHIND US. I TOOK THE CTLS AND ACCELERATED DOWN THE RWY TO AVOID THE CONFLICT. AFTER TURNING AROUND AT THE END OF THE 2700 FT STRIP, THE PLT OF THE SMA SEL TRIED TO LECTURE ME ON WHY I SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE RWY WHILE HE WAS LNDG, AND I ASSURED HIM THAT WE HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SINCE WE LANDED IN FRONT OF HIM, AND IF HE COMMUNICATED HIS INTENTIONS WHILE WE WERE WORKING THE CIRCUIT WE WOULD HAVE PROCEEDED TO THE END WHERE THEY HAD A TURN-AROUND. HE MENTIONED HE WAS COMMUNICATING BUT THAT HE DID NOT HEAR US. GOD ONLY KNOWS IF HE WAS COMMUNICATING OR NOT BUT HIS RADIO SEEMED TO WORK REAL WELL WHEN HE GOT ON THE GND. ASIDE FROM THE RULES THAT STATE WHO HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, IT SHOWS THAT IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF UNCTLED AIRSPACE (THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE RADIOS TO BEGIN WITH) FORCES THE INSTRUCTOR TO BE VERY DILIGENT WITH WHAT TFC COULD EXIST. STOP-AND-GO LNDGS PUTS ONE IN A VULNERABLE SIT SINCE ONE TAKES FOR GRANTED THAT IF NO ONE IS TALKING ON THE RADIO, THEN NO ONE IS AROUND. IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT I SHOULD RETHINK MY LESSON PLAN WHILE PERFORMING THESE TYPE OF LNDGS, AND BE MORE AWARE OF THE SURROUNDINGS AND NOT BE LULLED INTO COMPLACENCY THAT WE ARE THE ONLY ONE COMMUNICATING ON THE RADIO, THEREFORE WE ARE THE ONLY ONE. AS FOR THE SMA SEL PLT, HE DIDN'T HAVE AN EMER AND HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HIS RESPONSIBILITY. WHAT COMPELLED HIM TO LAND WITH US ON THE RWY SHOWS A LACK OF GOOD JUDGEMENT. I WISH HIS PAX WELL!
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.