Narrative:

On approach to the bozeman airport (gallatin field, mt) on sep/xa/98 to runway 30, we executed a go around due to lack of spacing with a light aircraft on the runway. The chronology is as follows: we reported a left base at 1500 AGL. A light aircraft reported turning base to final. Another aircraft reported taking off on runway 12, opposite the direction of the circuit with a 10 KT tailwind. We queried that aircraft twice about taking off opposite the flow of traffic, and the pilot repeated that he was still going to take off. Apparently changed his mind as we later saw an aircraft take off on runway 30. Another aircraft yet reported taking off on runway 21, which crosses runway 30. I queried that aircraft as to his specific intentions stating that there were aircraft on final. That aircraft responded by stating he wouldn't be a problem in relation to us. I specifically asked that pilot whether he was going to hold for the landing aircraft (landing aircraft were our aircraft and the aircraft ahead) or take off. That pilot responded he wouldn't be a problem providing no useful information. The flight engineer visually acquired the aircraft doing an intersection takeoff on runway 21. The fact that this aircraft was taking off from the intersection was not stated during his transmission. Our attention was now focused on the aircraft doing a touch-and-go ahead of us. It became apparent that the aircraft might now be doing a full stop. The aircraft remained on the runway and had not lifted off. I queried that aircraft's intentions as to a full stop or touch-and-go. The pilot responded 'touch-and-go' and lifted off shortly thereafter. The spacing between our aircraft and the touch-and-go aircraft required a go around. The captain made a left turn displacing our aircraft safely to the left and a timely radio call was made as to our intentions to avoid any turning conflicts. We kept the touch-and-go aircraft in sight who remained on runway heading. Our aircraft turned crosswind and a normal approach and landing was made. Contributing factors in this matter are the following: increasing density of air traffic into bozeman as a popular destination. Lack of a control tower which has been built and is currently unmanned due to a lawsuit over who will staff the tower. Increased cockpit workload trying to locate and determine the localizer of an aircraft who announced he would takeoff opposite the direction of the circuit with a 10 KT tailwind. More attention focused on an aircraft taking off on the crossing runway 21 who did not correctly state his position at the intersection of runways 30/12. Recommendations: get the tower manned as soon as possible. Mixing a high volume of light aircraft who fly at slow speeds with air carrier traffic at high approach speeds is unsafe.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A B727 MADE A GAR ON SHORT FINAL TO A NON TWR ARPT DUE TO A SMALL CESSNA DELAYED IN TAKING OFF FROM A TOUCH- AND-GO LNDG. THERE WAS NO CONFLICT DURING THE GAR SINCE RPTRS MAINTAINED VISUAL SEPARATION DURING THE GAR. HOWEVER, THE FLC COMPLAINED THAT THE NEWLY BUILT TWR SHOULD BECOME OPERATIONAL DUE TO SUCH A COMPLEX MIX OF TFC.

Narrative: ON APCH TO THE BOZEMAN ARPT (GALLATIN FIELD, MT) ON SEP/XA/98 TO RWY 30, WE EXECUTED A GAR DUE TO LACK OF SPACING WITH A LIGHT ACFT ON THE RWY. THE CHRONOLOGY IS AS FOLLOWS: WE RPTED A L BASE AT 1500 AGL. A LIGHT ACFT RPTED TURNING BASE TO FINAL. ANOTHER ACFT RPTED TAKING OFF ON RWY 12, OPPOSITE THE DIRECTION OF THE CIRCUIT WITH A 10 KT TAILWIND. WE QUERIED THAT ACFT TWICE ABOUT TAKING OFF OPPOSITE THE FLOW OF TFC, AND THE PLT REPEATED THAT HE WAS STILL GOING TO TAKE OFF. APPARENTLY CHANGED HIS MIND AS WE LATER SAW AN ACFT TAKE OFF ON RWY 30. ANOTHER ACFT YET RPTED TAKING OFF ON RWY 21, WHICH CROSSES RWY 30. I QUERIED THAT ACFT AS TO HIS SPECIFIC INTENTIONS STATING THAT THERE WERE ACFT ON FINAL. THAT ACFT RESPONDED BY STATING HE WOULDN'T BE A PROB IN RELATION TO US. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT PLT WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO HOLD FOR THE LNDG ACFT (LNDG ACFT WERE OUR ACFT AND THE ACFT AHEAD) OR TAKE OFF. THAT PLT RESPONDED HE WOULDN'T BE A PROB PROVIDING NO USEFUL INFO. THE FE VISUALLY ACQUIRED THE ACFT DOING AN INTXN TKOF ON RWY 21. THE FACT THAT THIS ACFT WAS TAKING OFF FROM THE INTXN WAS NOT STATED DURING HIS XMISSION. OUR ATTN WAS NOW FOCUSED ON THE ACFT DOING A TOUCH-AND-GO AHEAD OF US. IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE ACFT MIGHT NOW BE DOING A FULL STOP. THE ACFT REMAINED ON THE RWY AND HAD NOT LIFTED OFF. I QUERIED THAT ACFT'S INTENTIONS AS TO A FULL STOP OR TOUCH-AND-GO. THE PLT RESPONDED 'TOUCH-AND-GO' AND LIFTED OFF SHORTLY THEREAFTER. THE SPACING BTWN OUR ACFT AND THE TOUCH-AND-GO ACFT REQUIRED A GAR. THE CAPT MADE A L TURN DISPLACING OUR ACFT SAFELY TO THE L AND A TIMELY RADIO CALL WAS MADE AS TO OUR INTENTIONS TO AVOID ANY TURNING CONFLICTS. WE KEPT THE TOUCH-AND-GO ACFT IN SIGHT WHO REMAINED ON RWY HDG. OUR ACFT TURNED XWIND AND A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG WAS MADE. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IN THIS MATTER ARE THE FOLLOWING: INCREASING DENSITY OF AIR TFC INTO BOZEMAN AS A POPULAR DEST. LACK OF A CTL TWR WHICH HAS BEEN BUILT AND IS CURRENTLY UNMANNED DUE TO A LAWSUIT OVER WHO WILL STAFF THE TWR. INCREASED COCKPIT WORKLOAD TRYING TO LOCATE AND DETERMINE THE LOC OF AN ACFT WHO ANNOUNCED HE WOULD TKOF OPPOSITE THE DIRECTION OF THE CIRCUIT WITH A 10 KT TAILWIND. MORE ATTN FOCUSED ON AN ACFT TAKING OFF ON THE XING RWY 21 WHO DID NOT CORRECTLY STATE HIS POS AT THE INTXN OF RWYS 30/12. RECOMMENDATIONS: GET THE TWR MANNED ASAP. MIXING A HIGH VOLUME OF LIGHT ACFT WHO FLY AT SLOW SPDS WITH ACR TFC AT HIGH APCH SPDS IS UNSAFE.

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.