Narrative:

The incident involves a student PF a cessna 150 and jetstream. The 2 aircraft were cleared for landing by tower to the same runway: and their resulting flight paths resulted in a traffic conflict and a near miss. This description is offered by the instructor of the student pilot, who was observing the chain of events from the ground and who was listening to ATC communications on a hand held radio. The student pilot is part of a foreign student group conducting primary flight training at the airport where the incident occurred. The student had received approximately 26 hours of dual instruction in the preceding 17 days and had performed his first solo the day before. The student was conducting his second supervised solo at the time of the occurrence. Following the student's call to tower reporting left downwind, the tower cleared the student for the option and to follow another aircraft ahead on left downwind and a jetstream making right traffic for the same runway. The student responded with the aircraft's 'north' number. The tower made additional calls to the student in an effort to learn if he had the jetstream traffic in view. The student did not respond to tower's query to confirm that he did or did not have the traffic in sight. The student turned left base as the jetstream was turning right base for the same runway. The 2 aircraft were on converging flight paths to the point where both were about to turn final when tower called for the student to execute a go around. At the same time the jetstream made a tight turn to the right in what looked like an evasive maneuver to avoid the student's aircraft. Both aircraft made gars and then landed without incident. I interviewed the student pilot following his landing. The student somberly apologized for being a part of the traffic conflict. I came away with the impression that he understood the traffic alert from tower, but could not think quickly enough to formulate a radio response (ATC communications from tower were rapid fire just prior to, during and immediately following the traffic conflict). The student was looking for the jetstream, but did not spot the aircraft until such time as the jetstream showed the underside of it's wings during it's evasive maneuvering. Following my interview with the student I visited the tower to discuss the situation. The controller voiced her opinion that the student did not understand english and was (therefore) a menace to flying safety. The controller asserted that this student failed to positively acknowledge calls pertaining to traffic. The controller suggested that additional instruction was in order regarding ATC communications in general: and more specifically, acknowledging ATC traffic alerts. I replied that I thought this would be a good idea and agreed to work with the student in this regard and would pass the word on to the other instructors at the flight school as well. While this student pilot is no english major, it should be noted that the student did demonstrate a familiarity and command of ATC communications during the course of this flight. The student requested and received clearance from ground to taxi to the active runway. The student requested takeoff clearance from tower which included a request for left traffic touch-and-goes. The student received, acknowledged and performed a clearance to 'taxi into position and hold.' the student acknowledged and performed the clearance to take off and to make left traffic and report downwind. The student understood and took appropriate action following the instruction to 'go around' during the incident: and on the following pattern acknowledged and followed an instruction to 'extend your downwind, I (tower) will call your base.' the student extended his downwind until instructed to turn base at which point he did so. On his final pattern the student reported a left downwind and requested a full stop landing. While the student's failure to answer tower's traffic alerts with a clear response is cause for concern, in my opinion tower shares responsibility in allowing the situation to develop to the extent that it became a conflict. The controller stated that she was unable to ascertain if the student had spotted the traffic as the 2 aircraft were beginning to turn onto their respective base legs. The controller wasclrly concerned about the potential for a traffic conflict: but instead of instructing the jetstream or the student to make turns to evade one another, the controller was preoccupied with making repeated queries to the student to learn if he had the jetstream traffic in sight as the 2 aircraft continued to converge on one another. Additional instruction will be given to the student regarding ATC communications before he is allowed to conduct future solo operations: and I would hope that the controller will allow additional separation between student pilots and commuter aircraft and will take proactive measures when she is unsure of a given traffic situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA AND LTT IN TFC PATTERN HAVE CLOSE PROX.

Narrative: THE INCIDENT INVOLVES A STUDENT PF A CESSNA 150 AND JETSTREAM. THE 2 ACFT WERE CLRED FOR LNDG BY TWR TO THE SAME RWY: AND THEIR RESULTING FLT PATHS RESULTED IN A TFC CONFLICT AND A NEAR MISS. THIS DESCRIPTION IS OFFERED BY THE INSTRUCTOR OF THE STUDENT PLT, WHO WAS OBSERVING THE CHAIN OF EVENTS FROM THE GND AND WHO WAS LISTENING TO ATC COMS ON A HAND HELD RADIO. THE STUDENT PLT IS PART OF A FOREIGN STUDENT GROUP CONDUCTING PRIMARY FLT TRAINING AT THE ARPT WHERE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED. THE STUDENT HAD RECEIVED APPROX 26 HRS OF DUAL INSTRUCTION IN THE PRECEDING 17 DAYS AND HAD PERFORMED HIS FIRST SOLO THE DAY BEFORE. THE STUDENT WAS CONDUCTING HIS SECOND SUPERVISED SOLO AT THE TIME OF THE OCCURRENCE. FOLLOWING THE STUDENT'S CALL TO TWR RPTING L DOWNWIND, THE TWR CLRED THE STUDENT FOR THE OPTION AND TO FOLLOW ANOTHER ACFT AHEAD ON L DOWNWIND AND A JETSTREAM MAKING R TFC FOR THE SAME RWY. THE STUDENT RESPONDED WITH THE ACFT'S 'N' NUMBER. THE TWR MADE ADDITIONAL CALLS TO THE STUDENT IN AN EFFORT TO LEARN IF HE HAD THE JETSTREAM TFC IN VIEW. THE STUDENT DID NOT RESPOND TO TWR'S QUERY TO CONFIRM THAT HE DID OR DID NOT HAVE THE TFC IN SIGHT. THE STUDENT TURNED L BASE AS THE JETSTREAM WAS TURNING R BASE FOR THE SAME RWY. THE 2 ACFT WERE ON CONVERGING FLT PATHS TO THE POINT WHERE BOTH WERE ABOUT TO TURN FINAL WHEN TWR CALLED FOR THE STUDENT TO EXECUTE A GAR. AT THE SAME TIME THE JETSTREAM MADE A TIGHT TURN TO THE R IN WHAT LOOKED LIKE AN EVASIVE MANEUVER TO AVOID THE STUDENT'S ACFT. BOTH ACFT MADE GARS AND THEN LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. I INTERVIEWED THE STUDENT PLT FOLLOWING HIS LNDG. THE STUDENT SOMBERLY APOLOGIZED FOR BEING A PART OF THE TFC CONFLICT. I CAME AWAY WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE TFC ALERT FROM TWR, BUT COULD NOT THINK QUICKLY ENOUGH TO FORMULATE A RADIO RESPONSE (ATC COMS FROM TWR WERE RAPID FIRE JUST PRIOR TO, DURING AND IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE TFC CONFLICT). THE STUDENT WAS LOOKING FOR THE JETSTREAM, BUT DID NOT SPOT THE ACFT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE JETSTREAM SHOWED THE UNDERSIDE OF IT'S WINGS DURING IT'S EVASIVE MANEUVERING. FOLLOWING MY INTERVIEW WITH THE STUDENT I VISITED THE TWR TO DISCUSS THE SIT. THE CTLR VOICED HER OPINION THAT THE STUDENT DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH AND WAS (THEREFORE) A MENACE TO FLYING SAFETY. THE CTLR ASSERTED THAT THIS STUDENT FAILED TO POSITIVELY ACKNOWLEDGE CALLS PERTAINING TO TFC. THE CTLR SUGGESTED THAT ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTION WAS IN ORDER REGARDING ATC COMS IN GENERAL: AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, ACKNOWLEDGING ATC TFC ALERTS. I REPLIED THAT I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA AND AGREED TO WORK WITH THE STUDENT IN THIS REGARD AND WOULD PASS THE WORD ON TO THE OTHER INSTRUCTORS AT THE FLT SCHOOL AS WELL. WHILE THIS STUDENT PLT IS NO ENGLISH MAJOR, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE STUDENT DID DEMONSTRATE A FAMILIARITY AND COMMAND OF ATC COMS DURING THE COURSE OF THIS FLT. THE STUDENT REQUESTED AND RECEIVED CLRNC FROM GND TO TAXI TO THE ACTIVE RWY. THE STUDENT REQUESTED TKOF CLRNC FROM TWR WHICH INCLUDED A REQUEST FOR L TFC TOUCH-AND-GOES. THE STUDENT RECEIVED, ACKNOWLEDGED AND PERFORMED A CLRNC TO 'TAXI INTO POS AND HOLD.' THE STUDENT ACKNOWLEDGED AND PERFORMED THE CLRNC TO TAKE OFF AND TO MAKE L TFC AND RPT DOWNWIND. THE STUDENT UNDERSTOOD AND TOOK APPROPRIATE ACTION FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTION TO 'GAR' DURING THE INCIDENT: AND ON THE FOLLOWING PATTERN ACKNOWLEDGED AND FOLLOWED AN INSTRUCTION TO 'EXTEND YOUR DOWNWIND, I (TWR) WILL CALL YOUR BASE.' THE STUDENT EXTENDED HIS DOWNWIND UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO TURN BASE AT WHICH POINT HE DID SO. ON HIS FINAL PATTERN THE STUDENT RPTED A L DOWNWIND AND REQUESTED A FULL STOP LNDG. WHILE THE STUDENT'S FAILURE TO ANSWER TWR'S TFC ALERTS WITH A CLR RESPONSE IS CAUSE FOR CONCERN, IN MY OPINION TWR SHARES RESPONSIBILITY IN ALLOWING THE SIT TO DEVELOP TO THE EXTENT THAT IT BECAME A CONFLICT. THE CTLR STATED THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN IF THE STUDENT HAD SPOTTED THE TFC AS THE 2 ACFT WERE BEGINNING TO TURN ONTO THEIR RESPECTIVE BASE LEGS. THE CTLR WASCLRLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR A TFC CONFLICT: BUT INSTEAD OF INSTRUCTING THE JETSTREAM OR THE STUDENT TO MAKE TURNS TO EVADE ONE ANOTHER, THE CTLR WAS PREOCCUPIED WITH MAKING REPEATED QUERIES TO THE STUDENT TO LEARN IF HE HAD THE JETSTREAM TFC IN SIGHT AS THE 2 ACFT CONTINUED TO CONVERGE ON ONE ANOTHER. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTION WILL BE GIVEN TO THE STUDENT REGARDING ATC COMS BEFORE HE IS ALLOWED TO CONDUCT FUTURE SOLO OPS: AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THE CTLR WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL SEPARATION BTWN STUDENT PLTS AND COMMUTER ACFT AND WILL TAKE PROACTIVE MEASURES WHEN SHE IS UNSURE OF A GIVEN TFC SIT.

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.