Narrative:

Small high-wing aircraft (probably C-150) incorrectly entered the traffic pattern creating a hazard for another aircraft already on final to runway 27. We were in position to back-taxi for takeoff after making a pilot change. We waited for sufficient space (no aircraft on final) to begin our back- taxi. Cessna aircraft flew what appeared to be a very tight base and final such that we were still midfield on our back-taxi as he turned final. I commented to my student that the aircraft had better be intending to go around. Other aircraft in pattern that had been previously cut off by cessna asked if there was someone back-taxiing so that the cessna might become aware that we were still on the runway. As the cessna began to flare approximately 100 yards ahead of us it was clear that he did not see us. We began to slow and veer to the right to avoid his path. He then saw us and began a go around (term used loosely). His go around appeared to be in an almost stalled condition given the attitude and rocking of his wings (other aircraft in the pattern verified my observation and agreed with my analysis. At the point when the cessna cleared us I estimate 25 ft vertical separation, zero horizontal separation. Our aircraft had made all aim recommended radio calls throughout the duration of our stay at rantoul. The cessna departed upwind, we did not see him again. In reviewing the above incident it should be noted that mere following of aim procedures does not keep everyone safe. A constant vigilance for those who are not following procedures must be kept. In addition, it should be pointed out that when one is uncertain about the actions of another pilot/aircraft, it is best not to second guess their intentions. Wait until one is assured of adequate clearance throughout a maneuver, not just when starting the maneuver.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA BACK TAXIING ON UNCTLED ARPT RWY WAS ALMOST HIT BY ANOTHER SMA MAKING A GAR.

Narrative: SMALL HIGH-WING ACFT (PROBABLY C-150) INCORRECTLY ENTERED THE TFC PATTERN CREATING A HAZARD FOR ANOTHER ACFT ALREADY ON FINAL TO RWY 27. WE WERE IN POS TO BACK-TAXI FOR TKOF AFTER MAKING A PLT CHANGE. WE WAITED FOR SUFFICIENT SPACE (NO ACFT ON FINAL) TO BEGIN OUR BACK- TAXI. CESSNA ACFT FLEW WHAT APPEARED TO BE A VERY TIGHT BASE AND FINAL SUCH THAT WE WERE STILL MIDFIELD ON OUR BACK-TAXI AS HE TURNED FINAL. I COMMENTED TO MY STUDENT THAT THE ACFT HAD BETTER BE INTENDING TO GAR. OTHER ACFT IN PATTERN THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY CUT OFF BY CESSNA ASKED IF THERE WAS SOMEONE BACK-TAXIING SO THAT THE CESSNA MIGHT BECOME AWARE THAT WE WERE STILL ON THE RWY. AS THE CESSNA BEGAN TO FLARE APPROX 100 YARDS AHEAD OF US IT WAS CLR THAT HE DID NOT SEE US. WE BEGAN TO SLOW AND VEER TO THE R TO AVOID HIS PATH. HE THEN SAW US AND BEGAN A GAR (TERM USED LOOSELY). HIS GAR APPEARED TO BE IN AN ALMOST STALLED CONDITION GIVEN THE ATTITUDE AND ROCKING OF HIS WINGS (OTHER ACFT IN THE PATTERN VERIFIED MY OBSERVATION AND AGREED WITH MY ANALYSIS. AT THE POINT WHEN THE CESSNA CLRED US I ESTIMATE 25 FT VERT SEPARATION, ZERO HORIZ SEPARATION. OUR ACFT HAD MADE ALL AIM RECOMMENDED RADIO CALLS THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF OUR STAY AT RANTOUL. THE CESSNA DEPARTED UPWIND, WE DID NOT SEE HIM AGAIN. IN REVIEWING THE ABOVE INCIDENT IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT MERE FOLLOWING OF AIM PROCS DOES NOT KEEP EVERYONE SAFE. A CONSTANT VIGILANCE FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT FOLLOWING PROCS MUST BE KEPT. IN ADDITION, IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT WHEN ONE IS UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER PLT/ACFT, IT IS BEST NOT TO SECOND GUESS THEIR INTENTIONS. WAIT UNTIL ONE IS ASSURED OF ADEQUATE CLRNC THROUGHOUT A MANEUVER, NOT JUST WHEN STARTING THE MANEUVER.

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.