Narrative:

Conditions were total darkness, VMC, wind direction (AWOS) 040 degrees, runway 1 in use. I was practicing night lndgs with full stop, taxi back for takeoff, and a closed pattern. 2 other VFR aircraft were in the pattern, all using runway 1 and announcing position and intentions on the CTAF. I had just checked the pattern for traffic and was ready to take the runway for takeoff when I received on the CTAF, 'military helicopter XXXX, 4 mi out on the ILS.' since I am not instrument rated and not intimately familiar with IFR procedures at pwt, I did not immediately recall that the ILS at pwt serves only runway 19. I therefore erroneously assumed that the traffic was on approach for runway 1 and, in fact, expedited my taking the runway to maximize spacing. Just as I began rolling the helicopter announced '...on final for runway 19,' and at the same time I idented his light against a backgnd of several ground and airborne lights. I immediately cut power and taxied clear of the runway onto the grass. (There was no taxiway near my location.) I called 'military helicopter, are you for low approach,' but received no reply. The helicopter continued his approach and either landed or hovered near the approach end of runway 19. I called 'military helicopter, are you turning off' but again received no reply. The helicopter then proceeded to take off, and passing over my position, announced 'military helicopter XXX, airborne, departing straight out.' I was left wondering if the helicopter was not monitoring the VHF CTAF, possibly listening only on UHF or only to approach control. Certainly I was at fault for violating the right-of-way of a landing aircraft, but how far does my responsibility as a VFR-only pilot extend for familiarity with IFR procedures, particularly at an unfamiliar non tower airport in VMC? Also I feel that considerable fault lies with the military pilot for flying an approach at conflict with established flow without at least clearly stating his intentions. Note that on his initial CTAF call he neither stated his direction from the field, his intended runway, nor his intentions for completing the approach. Incidents such as this emphasize the need for complete communication and extra alertness in sits of mixed IFR and VFR traffic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TFC CONFLICT BTWN SMA PRACTICING NIGHT LNDGS AT PWT AND HELICOPTER ON ILS APCH FOR RWY 19.

Narrative: CONDITIONS WERE TOTAL DARKNESS, VMC, WIND DIRECTION (AWOS) 040 DEGS, RWY 1 IN USE. I WAS PRACTICING NIGHT LNDGS WITH FULL STOP, TAXI BACK FOR TKOF, AND A CLOSED PATTERN. 2 OTHER VFR ACFT WERE IN THE PATTERN, ALL USING RWY 1 AND ANNOUNCING POS AND INTENTIONS ON THE CTAF. I HAD JUST CHKED THE PATTERN FOR TFC AND WAS READY TO TAKE THE RWY FOR TKOF WHEN I RECEIVED ON THE CTAF, 'MIL HELI XXXX, 4 MI OUT ON THE ILS.' SINCE I AM NOT INST RATED AND NOT INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH IFR PROCS AT PWT, I DID NOT IMMEDIATELY RECALL THAT THE ILS AT PWT SERVES ONLY RWY 19. I THEREFORE ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED THAT THE TFC WAS ON APCH FOR RWY 1 AND, IN FACT, EXPEDITED MY TAKING THE RWY TO MAXIMIZE SPACING. JUST AS I BEGAN ROLLING THE HELI ANNOUNCED '...ON FINAL FOR RWY 19,' AND AT THE SAME TIME I IDENTED HIS LIGHT AGAINST A BACKGND OF SEVERAL GND AND AIRBORNE LIGHTS. I IMMEDIATELY CUT PWR AND TAXIED CLR OF THE RWY ONTO THE GRASS. (THERE WAS NO TXWY NEAR MY LOCATION.) I CALLED 'MIL HELI, ARE YOU FOR LOW APCH,' BUT RECEIVED NO REPLY. THE HELI CONTINUED HIS APCH AND EITHER LANDED OR HOVERED NEAR THE APCH END OF RWY 19. I CALLED 'MIL HELI, ARE YOU TURNING OFF' BUT AGAIN RECEIVED NO REPLY. THE HELI THEN PROCEEDED TO TAKE OFF, AND PASSING OVER MY POS, ANNOUNCED 'MIL HELI XXX, AIRBORNE, DEPARTING STRAIGHT OUT.' I WAS LEFT WONDERING IF THE HELI WAS NOT MONITORING THE VHF CTAF, POSSIBLY LISTENING ONLY ON UHF OR ONLY TO APCH CTL. CERTAINLY I WAS AT FAULT FOR VIOLATING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF A LNDG ACFT, BUT HOW FAR DOES MY RESPONSIBILITY AS A VFR-ONLY PLT EXTEND FOR FAMILIARITY WITH IFR PROCS, PARTICULARLY AT AN UNFAMILIAR NON TWR ARPT IN VMC? ALSO I FEEL THAT CONSIDERABLE FAULT LIES WITH THE MIL PLT FOR FLYING AN APCH AT CONFLICT WITH ESTABLISHED FLOW WITHOUT AT LEAST CLRLY STATING HIS INTENTIONS. NOTE THAT ON HIS INITIAL CTAF CALL HE NEITHER STATED HIS DIRECTION FROM THE FIELD, HIS INTENDED RWY, NOR HIS INTENTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE APCH. INCIDENTS SUCH AS THIS EMPHASIZE THE NEED FOR COMPLETE COM AND EXTRA ALERTNESS IN SITS OF MIXED IFR AND VFR TFC.

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.