Narrative:

I departed runway 16 from hpn and was given a right turn. I had told the tower that I was going to pou which usually would be a left turn out to avoid runway 16 approach. I was told to proceed 'on course' which was a 360 degree heading and would take me across the approach course of runway 16. I was told by tower 'frequency change approved' I voluntarily switched to 126.40 (ny approach) for TA's. The controller was quite busy and I heard him clear 2 aircraft (1 jet and 1 beech 1900) to intercept the localizer for runway 16 at hpn. After several tries I reached him for advisories. I saw and avoided both aircraft on their approachs. He told me it was not a good idea to cross the approach end of a runway (which I was doing), and told me he almost had to cancel landing because of my presence. When tower advised me to 'on course' I asked if I was clear of the approach to runway 16 and they said 'frequency change because of the number of landing and takeoff at the time,' it appeared that tower was busy and wasn't tracking all departing aircraft, 2 runways were being used. I would think that they should have instructed me to 'overhead the airport at 2500 ft' and then have me go 'on course.' I was very aware of the other aircraft, but until I was in ny approach (126.4) radar and idented I can see that it was a problem. Ny was very nice and we discussed the situation and he said 'sometimes hpn's ideas of where to put people are different than ny's,' or word to that matter. Had I not been alert and talking to ny as soon as I did, there could have been a couple of 'big' incidents. Ny approach should inform hpn of desired departure rtes during operations of marginal VFR and VFR, to avoid these sits.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A MOONEY M20J PLT CROSSES THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR THE RWY THAT HE HAD JUST DEPARTED FROM, COMING WITHIN APPROX 500 FT OF TWO APCHING ACFT. THE MOONEY PLT KNEW ABOUT THE INBOUND ACFT BEFOREHAND.

Narrative: I DEPARTED RWY 16 FROM HPN AND WAS GIVEN A R TURN. I HAD TOLD THE TWR THAT I WAS GOING TO POU WHICH USUALLY WOULD BE A L TURN OUT TO AVOID RWY 16 APCH. I WAS TOLD TO PROCEED 'ON COURSE' WHICH WAS A 360 DEG HDG AND WOULD TAKE ME ACROSS THE APCH COURSE OF RWY 16. I WAS TOLD BY TWR 'FREQ CHANGE APPROVED' I VOLUNTARILY SWITCHED TO 126.40 (NY APCH) FOR TA'S. THE CTLR WAS QUITE BUSY AND I HEARD HIM CLR 2 ACFT (1 JET AND 1 BEECH 1900) TO INTERCEPT THE LOC FOR RWY 16 AT HPN. AFTER SEVERAL TRIES I REACHED HIM FOR ADVISORIES. I SAW AND AVOIDED BOTH ACFT ON THEIR APCHS. HE TOLD ME IT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO CROSS THE APCH END OF A RWY (WHICH I WAS DOING), AND TOLD ME HE ALMOST HAD TO CANCEL LNDG BECAUSE OF MY PRESENCE. WHEN TWR ADVISED ME TO 'ON COURSE' I ASKED IF I WAS CLR OF THE APCH TO RWY 16 AND THEY SAID 'FREQ CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF LNDG AND TKOF AT THE TIME,' IT APPEARED THAT TWR WAS BUSY AND WASN'T TRACKING ALL DEPARTING ACFT, 2 RWYS WERE BEING USED. I WOULD THINK THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED ME TO 'OVERHEAD THE ARPT AT 2500 FT' AND THEN HAVE ME GO 'ON COURSE.' I WAS VERY AWARE OF THE OTHER ACFT, BUT UNTIL I WAS IN NY APCH (126.4) RADAR AND IDENTED I CAN SEE THAT IT WAS A PROB. NY WAS VERY NICE AND WE DISCUSSED THE SIT AND HE SAID 'SOMETIMES HPN'S IDEAS OF WHERE TO PUT PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT THAN NY'S,' OR WORD TO THAT MATTER. HAD I NOT BEEN ALERT AND TALKING TO NY AS SOON AS I DID, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF 'BIG' INCIDENTS. NY APCH SHOULD INFORM HPN OF DESIRED DEP RTES DURING OPS OF MARGINAL VFR AND VFR, TO AVOID THESE SITS.

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.