Narrative:

Our flight profile requires us to practice an ILS and VOR approach. To minimize time, these approachs are usually done VFR without contacting approach control. While practicing approachs to runway 32, the active runway was runway 14. When opposite runways are in use, normal procedure is to break the approach off at approximately 1 mi and join the respective downwind or base. As we were on the final approach course to the VOR runway 32, we heard the tower tell us to report a 3 mi final which we acknowledged. As we approached a 3 mi final the controller told us to enter a left downwind to runway 14. As we began to break off the approach to enter the left downwind, a corporate jet had departed off runway 14. We had the aircraft in sight at all times, told the controller that we had it in sight and it was 'no factor.' the corporate jet passed over us and reported that we were too close. Contributing factors: possible miscom between the tower and us. After speaking with the controller he had said that he told us to enter a 3 mi left downwind, which we never heard him say. The controller at the time was somewhat busy with approximately 3-4 aircraft in the area. There was also lots of radio congestion going on between other aircraft and tower. Corrective actions: later, the controller told me that practicing approachs to runways when the opposite runway is in use has always been something that we have been doing, and it has been a problem, but they've never notified us about this until now. Possible solutions can be to limit the distance to the runway that we can continue the practice approach and make it clearly understood by both pilot and controller. Human performance: fortunately, both aircraft, us and the jet had each other in sight and were able to avoid each other. Actions that the controller should have taken could have been to, 1) hold the departing aircraft until the departure path was clear, especially with an aircraft of that departure speed, and 2) limit the distance from the runway that we can continue to practice the approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TWIN ENG SMA MAKING A PRACTICE VOR APCH TO RWY 32 PASSED IN CLOSE PROX TO A CORP JET THAT TOOK OFF RWY 14. TWR HAD TOLD THE SMA TO ENTER A 3 MI L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 14, BUT RPTR THOUGHT HE WAS TO RPT 3 MI FINAL THEN BREAK OFF APCH. THE SMA AND THE CORP JET HAD EACH OTHER IN SIGHT, BUT THE CORP JET FELT ACFT PROX WAS TOO CLOSE.

Narrative: OUR FLT PROFILE REQUIRES US TO PRACTICE AN ILS AND VOR APCH. TO MINIMIZE TIME, THESE APCHS ARE USUALLY DONE VFR WITHOUT CONTACTING APCH CTL. WHILE PRACTICING APCHS TO RWY 32, THE ACTIVE RWY WAS RWY 14. WHEN OPPOSITE RWYS ARE IN USE, NORMAL PROC IS TO BREAK THE APCH OFF AT APPROX 1 MI AND JOIN THE RESPECTIVE DOWNWIND OR BASE. AS WE WERE ON THE FINAL APCH COURSE TO THE VOR RWY 32, WE HEARD THE TWR TELL US TO RPT A 3 MI FINAL WHICH WE ACKNOWLEDGED. AS WE APCHED A 3 MI FINAL THE CTLR TOLD US TO ENTER A L DOWNWIND TO RWY 14. AS WE BEGAN TO BREAK OFF THE APCH TO ENTER THE L DOWNWIND, A CORPORATE JET HAD DEPARTED OFF RWY 14. WE HAD THE ACFT IN SIGHT AT ALL TIMES, TOLD THE CTLR THAT WE HAD IT IN SIGHT AND IT WAS 'NO FACTOR.' THE CORPORATE JET PASSED OVER US AND RPTED THAT WE WERE TOO CLOSE. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: POSSIBLE MISCOM BTWN THE TWR AND US. AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE CTLR HE HAD SAID THAT HE TOLD US TO ENTER A 3 MI L DOWNWIND, WHICH WE NEVER HEARD HIM SAY. THE CTLR AT THE TIME WAS SOMEWHAT BUSY WITH APPROX 3-4 ACFT IN THE AREA. THERE WAS ALSO LOTS OF RADIO CONGESTION GOING ON BTWN OTHER ACFT AND TWR. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: LATER, THE CTLR TOLD ME THAT PRACTICING APCHS TO RWYS WHEN THE OPPOSITE RWY IS IN USE HAS ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING, AND IT HAS BEEN A PROB, BUT THEY'VE NEVER NOTIFIED US ABOUT THIS UNTIL NOW. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS CAN BE TO LIMIT THE DISTANCE TO THE RWY THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THE PRACTICE APCH AND MAKE IT CLRLY UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH PLT AND CTLR. HUMAN PERFORMANCE: FORTUNATELY, BOTH ACFT, US AND THE JET HAD EACH OTHER IN SIGHT AND WERE ABLE TO AVOID EACH OTHER. ACTIONS THAT THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE TAKEN COULD HAVE BEEN TO, 1) HOLD THE DEPARTING ACFT UNTIL THE DEP PATH WAS CLR, ESPECIALLY WITH AN ACFT OF THAT DEP SPD, AND 2) LIMIT THE DISTANCE FROM THE RWY THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO PRACTICE THE APCH.

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.