Narrative:

In teaching my first hour student taxi procedures in a narrow ramp area, the C152 veered left of the yellow taxi centerline. I told him to add pressure with his right heel to make the aircraft turn back to the right to realign with the centerline. I added the right rudder pressure to take care of the situation. I added right brake to tighten the turn as we were getting close to a parked bonanza, A36. My student had frozen on the left rudder when he saw us getting closer to the other aircraft. I had limited ability in overpowering him and turning the C152 right. I was concerned that my left wingtip was too close to the A36 propeller. We were moving very slowly at the time and I added even braking to bring the C152 to a full stop. Not sure just how close my wingtip was to the propeller, I moved forward not more and 1-2 inches. I moved slowly and gently stopped the C152, when I felt uncomfortable proceeding any farther. I shutdown my aircraft, got out, inspected the propeller and indeed, my wingtip had softly brushed the propeller. I found nothing more than a little dusting of C152 wingtip paint that wiped off the propeller with my finger. My wingtip showed a small scratch in the paint, and was thoroughly intact. I determined the C152 to be airworthy, pushed it away from the A36, got in, started up, and taxied. I did not taxi 100 ft when the ground controller called. He told me he was sorry but he'd have to put that in the airport log. Not knowing what an airport log was, and since nothing was damaged, I didn't protest. I took off with my student. We did not fly farther than 15-20 mi from beverly airport and monitored the tower frequency the whole time, as is standard practice. I felt that by being within range of beverly and monitoring tower frequency, I was alert and available in case anything came of what happened. Upon arrival on the ramp at parking, after the flight, I promptly told the flight school owner/operator what happened. By immediately telling the C152 operator, by being available while giving a lesson, and since there was no damage anyway, I was being responsible. The school owner/operator had already been called by beverly tower, and had already gone to inspect the A36. He found absolutely nothing wrong with the propeller, and as we talked, he found nothing wrong with my wingtip. He sent a mechanic to inspect the propeller anyway. The mechanic found nothing wrong. The bonanza owner was notified. The operator was ready to dismiss the whole event, but mentioned that the tower controller said I had collided with the aircraft and the FAA would be notified. Upon hearing that, I began to understand that the controller, from 150 ft away, had jumped to conclusions and overreacted. In the tower controller's report to the FAA, he stated that I 'collided' with the bonanza. Watching from 150 ft away he cannot be sure of what he saw. He assumed what he saw, with a little imagination added. In his report he implied that I got out of the aircraft, pushed the C152 away from the bonanza, got into the C152 and taxied away. His report doesn't say that he also saw me inspect both propeller and wingtip before moving the C152 away. After I got into the C152 he never asked any questions such as: 'what happened?' 'is everything okay?' 'is there any damage?' he jumped over several layers of investigation and made a dishonest report. His unfounded accusations and irresponsible reporting without having the facts is causing days, if not weeks, of headache for the flight school, all for his 20 mins of government goody-two-shoes paper pushing. Many air traffic controllers want to provide a service, to be trusted by pilots, and to help pilots. This controller says that he was just doing his job. He has to report something if he see it. I've known this controller's voice and abilities for a long time. Since I'd always thought I could trust him to be reasonable, how can I now trust any of them? There is a conflict of interest in the ATC system if controllers are there to help you, with your problems or through your mistakes, but yet they also have obligation to report your problems or mistakes to FAA. Pilots are thus always on edge and confused as to how much they can say to get the help they need, but not get violated. Most commonly, pilots won't ask for assistance and will find other ways to solve their problems. This only has to happen 1 time to 1 pilot before a barrier is formed between pilots and ATC, shutting down the lines of communications. This itself compromises safety, just what ATC is trying so hard to avoid.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TAXI PROC MINOR COLLISION BTWN TAXIING TFC AND PARKED ACFT.

Narrative: IN TEACHING MY FIRST HR STUDENT TAXI PROCS IN A NARROW RAMP AREA, THE C152 VEERED L OF THE YELLOW TAXI CTRLINE. I TOLD HIM TO ADD PRESSURE WITH HIS R HEEL TO MAKE THE ACFT TURN BACK TO THE R TO REALIGN WITH THE CTRLINE. I ADDED THE R RUDDER PRESSURE TO TAKE CARE OF THE SIT. I ADDED R BRAKE TO TIGHTEN THE TURN AS WE WERE GETTING CLOSE TO A PARKED BONANZA, A36. MY STUDENT HAD FROZEN ON THE L RUDDER WHEN HE SAW US GETTING CLOSER TO THE OTHER ACFT. I HAD LIMITED ABILITY IN OVERPOWERING HIM AND TURNING THE C152 R. I WAS CONCERNED THAT MY L WINGTIP WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE A36 PROP. WE WERE MOVING VERY SLOWLY AT THE TIME AND I ADDED EVEN BRAKING TO BRING THE C152 TO A FULL STOP. NOT SURE JUST HOW CLOSE MY WINGTIP WAS TO THE PROP, I MOVED FORWARD NOT MORE AND 1-2 INCHES. I MOVED SLOWLY AND GENTLY STOPPED THE C152, WHEN I FELT UNCOMFORTABLE PROCEEDING ANY FARTHER. I SHUTDOWN MY ACFT, GOT OUT, INSPECTED THE PROP AND INDEED, MY WINGTIP HAD SOFTLY BRUSHED THE PROP. I FOUND NOTHING MORE THAN A LITTLE DUSTING OF C152 WINGTIP PAINT THAT WIPED OFF THE PROP WITH MY FINGER. MY WINGTIP SHOWED A SMALL SCRATCH IN THE PAINT, AND WAS THOROUGHLY INTACT. I DETERMINED THE C152 TO BE AIRWORTHY, PUSHED IT AWAY FROM THE A36, GOT IN, STARTED UP, AND TAXIED. I DID NOT TAXI 100 FT WHEN THE GND CTLR CALLED. HE TOLD ME HE WAS SORRY BUT HE'D HAVE TO PUT THAT IN THE ARPT LOG. NOT KNOWING WHAT AN ARPT LOG WAS, AND SINCE NOTHING WAS DAMAGED, I DIDN'T PROTEST. I TOOK OFF WITH MY STUDENT. WE DID NOT FLY FARTHER THAN 15-20 MI FROM BEVERLY ARPT AND MONITORED THE TWR FREQ THE WHOLE TIME, AS IS STANDARD PRACTICE. I FELT THAT BY BEING WITHIN RANGE OF BEVERLY AND MONITORING TWR FREQ, I WAS ALERT AND AVAILABLE IN CASE ANYTHING CAME OF WHAT HAPPENED. UPON ARR ON THE RAMP AT PARKING, AFTER THE FLT, I PROMPTLY TOLD THE FLT SCHOOL OWNER/OPERATOR WHAT HAPPENED. BY IMMEDIATELY TELLING THE C152 OPERATOR, BY BEING AVAILABLE WHILE GIVING A LESSON, AND SINCE THERE WAS NO DAMAGE ANYWAY, I WAS BEING RESPONSIBLE. THE SCHOOL OWNER/OPERATOR HAD ALREADY BEEN CALLED BY BEVERLY TWR, AND HAD ALREADY GONE TO INSPECT THE A36. HE FOUND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THE PROP, AND AS WE TALKED, HE FOUND NOTHING WRONG WITH MY WINGTIP. HE SENT A MECH TO INSPECT THE PROP ANYWAY. THE MECH FOUND NOTHING WRONG. THE BONANZA OWNER WAS NOTIFIED. THE OPERATOR WAS READY TO DISMISS THE WHOLE EVENT, BUT MENTIONED THAT THE TWR CTLR SAID I HAD COLLIDED WITH THE ACFT AND THE FAA WOULD BE NOTIFIED. UPON HEARING THAT, I BEGAN TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CTLR, FROM 150 FT AWAY, HAD JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS AND OVERREACTED. IN THE TWR CTLR'S RPT TO THE FAA, HE STATED THAT I 'COLLIDED' WITH THE BONANZA. WATCHING FROM 150 FT AWAY HE CANNOT BE SURE OF WHAT HE SAW. HE ASSUMED WHAT HE SAW, WITH A LITTLE IMAGINATION ADDED. IN HIS RPT HE IMPLIED THAT I GOT OUT OF THE ACFT, PUSHED THE C152 AWAY FROM THE BONANZA, GOT INTO THE C152 AND TAXIED AWAY. HIS RPT DOESN'T SAY THAT HE ALSO SAW ME INSPECT BOTH PROP AND WINGTIP BEFORE MOVING THE C152 AWAY. AFTER I GOT INTO THE C152 HE NEVER ASKED ANY QUESTIONS SUCH AS: 'WHAT HAPPENED?' 'IS EVERYTHING OKAY?' 'IS THERE ANY DAMAGE?' HE JUMPED OVER SEVERAL LAYERS OF INVESTIGATION AND MADE A DISHONEST RPT. HIS UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS AND IRRESPONSIBLE RPTING WITHOUT HAVING THE FACTS IS CAUSING DAYS, IF NOT WEEKS, OF HEADACHE FOR THE FLT SCHOOL, ALL FOR HIS 20 MINS OF GOVERNMENT GOODY-TWO-SHOES PAPER PUSHING. MANY AIR TFC CTLRS WANT TO PROVIDE A SVC, TO BE TRUSTED BY PLTS, AND TO HELP PLTS. THIS CTLR SAYS THAT HE WAS JUST DOING HIS JOB. HE HAS TO RPT SOMETHING IF HE SEE IT. I'VE KNOWN THIS CTLR'S VOICE AND ABILITIES FOR A LONG TIME. SINCE I'D ALWAYS THOUGHT I COULD TRUST HIM TO BE REASONABLE, HOW CAN I NOW TRUST ANY OF THEM? THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE ATC SYS IF CTLRS ARE THERE TO HELP YOU, WITH YOUR PROBS OR THROUGH YOUR MISTAKES, BUT YET THEY ALSO HAVE OBLIGATION TO RPT YOUR PROBS OR MISTAKES TO FAA. PLTS ARE THUS ALWAYS ON EDGE AND CONFUSED AS TO HOW MUCH THEY CAN SAY TO GET THE HELP THEY NEED, BUT NOT GET VIOLATED. MOST COMMONLY, PLTS WON'T ASK FOR ASSISTANCE AND WILL FIND OTHER WAYS TO SOLVE THEIR PROBS. THIS ONLY HAS TO HAPPEN 1 TIME TO 1 PLT BEFORE A BARRIER IS FORMED BTWN PLTS AND ATC, SHUTTING DOWN THE LINES OF COMS. THIS ITSELF COMPROMISES SAFETY, JUST WHAT ATC IS TRYING SO HARD TO AVOID.

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.