Narrative:

Recollections of flight sez-prc, VFR on jan/wed/02. Aircraft: king air C90B. Pilot: PNF. Copilot: PF. Passenger: 2. We departed the sez airport VFR around XA00, direct to prc. We climbed to 10500 ft to stay below the clouds over the intervening mountains. Conditions at sez were scattered clouds at about 14000 ft. The flight was uneventful. At approximately 30 NM ese of prc, the pilot in the left seat (PNF) called prc tower (approach?) and was advised to continue inbound, descend to 6500 ft and expect right traffic for runway X. Although I was at the controls, I was listening to the ATIS at the time and didn't quite catch the runway assignment. The PNF requested the runway length and was given a figure that I don't recall. My assumption was that we were going to land on the shorter runway, runway 30. The wind was gusty and favored runway 30. As we continued inbound, descending to 6500 ft at about 160 KTS, there were several xmissions involving numerous aircraft -- from and to the tower -- mostly referencing runway 30, but I heard some references to runway 3. There appeared to be some references to runway 3, as well. Both pilots were quite busy looking for traffic. I believe I then heard that we were cleared to descend to traffic pattern altitude and cleared for a right downwind to runway 3. Slightly before this time I said to the PNF, 'this doesn't make sense,' referring to what I thought was contradictory information regarding the landing runway and our current heading (which I don't exactly recall). He agreed and we then received the clearance mentioned above. At this time, I made about a 50 degree left turn to approximately a downwind on runway 3 (which would have made our previous heading about 260 degrees) and started to descend to 6000 ft. While descending, I heard numerous radio xmissions to others. We were directed to turn 'south' and there seemed to be some confusion on the frequency. I started the turn and reached approximately south and 6000 ft at about the same time. At this time I believe we were about 3-4 NM southwest of the field. Shortly thereafter, we were directed to resume the visual approach to runway 3R and did so with a right turn and an uneventful visual approach and landing. I believe this is the first time I heard the runway 3R designation. After landing, while taxiing in, were directed to call the tower after parking the aircraft. 1 passenger in our aircraft then mentioned that a light twin aircraft had passed approximately 500 ft below us while we were on downwind. I neither saw nor specifically noticed xmissions from this aircraft while we were approaching the field. The PF is a retired airline captain with more than 15000 hours in conventional and jet aircraft. He is an active glider and motor glider pilot. The PNF (the aircraft owner) is a highly experienced pilot with more than 6000 hours, an instrument rating, a current medical and a current proficiency check in this aircraft. Prc is a very active GA field with numerous ongoing training facilities and activity. During our approach to the field, I heard radio xmissions to helicopters and other aircraft that appeared to be in a training environment. I am accustomed (from past experience) to land on the longest runway available at any airport. I may have heard runway 30 and translated it in my mind to runway 3. As far as I recollect, however, this did not happen -- but it is possible. There appeared to be some deviation from standard runway nomenclature with '03, 30, and 3' in my mind, sort of blending together. I had the feeling that the tower was confused from the xmissions that I heard and I don't know whether it was because of us or other flight activity on the field. Recommendations: standard nomenclature should be rigidly adhered to. The presence of familiar activity on a field should not be an occasion to deviate from standard practice. Training flts may use contractions and short phrases in the interests of efficiency for their operations. Transient aircraft may not be knowledgeable about this jargon. This is particularly disconcerting for visiting aircraft. Every approach is an important approach, and tight cockpit discipline should be maintained. My last several yrs as an airline captain were spent in aircraft with glass cockpits. Although I reviewed the runway layout at prc, several yrs with glass display technology and several yrs of not flying high performance aircraft may have set me up for some confusion. When one falls back on old habits, there had better be an environment that supports those habits -- or one should develop new habits!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE90 CREW HAD LNDG RWY CONFUSION AND HAD LESS THAN COMFORTABLE SEPARATION IN PRC CLASS D AIRSPACE.

Narrative: RECOLLECTIONS OF FLT SEZ-PRC, VFR ON JAN/WED/02. ACFT: KING AIR C90B. PLT: PNF. COPLT: PF. PAX: 2. WE DEPARTED THE SEZ ARPT VFR AROUND XA00, DIRECT TO PRC. WE CLBED TO 10500 FT TO STAY BELOW THE CLOUDS OVER THE INTERVENING MOUNTAINS. CONDITIONS AT SEZ WERE SCATTERED CLOUDS AT ABOUT 14000 FT. THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. AT APPROX 30 NM ESE OF PRC, THE PLT IN THE L SEAT (PNF) CALLED PRC TWR (APCH?) AND WAS ADVISED TO CONTINUE INBOUND, DSND TO 6500 FT AND EXPECT R TFC FOR RWY X. ALTHOUGH I WAS AT THE CTLS, I WAS LISTENING TO THE ATIS AT THE TIME AND DIDN'T QUITE CATCH THE RWY ASSIGNMENT. THE PNF REQUESTED THE RWY LENGTH AND WAS GIVEN A FIGURE THAT I DON'T RECALL. MY ASSUMPTION WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO LAND ON THE SHORTER RWY, RWY 30. THE WIND WAS GUSTY AND FAVORED RWY 30. AS WE CONTINUED INBOUND, DSNDING TO 6500 FT AT ABOUT 160 KTS, THERE WERE SEVERAL XMISSIONS INVOLVING NUMEROUS ACFT -- FROM AND TO THE TWR -- MOSTLY REFING RWY 30, BUT I HEARD SOME REFS TO RWY 3. THERE APPEARED TO BE SOME REFS TO RWY 3, AS WELL. BOTH PLTS WERE QUITE BUSY LOOKING FOR TFC. I BELIEVE I THEN HEARD THAT WE WERE CLRED TO DSND TO TFC PATTERN ALT AND CLRED FOR A R DOWNWIND TO RWY 3. SLIGHTLY BEFORE THIS TIME I SAID TO THE PNF, 'THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE,' REFERRING TO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS CONTRADICTORY INFO REGARDING THE LNDG RWY AND OUR CURRENT HDG (WHICH I DON'T EXACTLY RECALL). HE AGREED AND WE THEN RECEIVED THE CLRNC MENTIONED ABOVE. AT THIS TIME, I MADE ABOUT A 50 DEG L TURN TO APPROX A DOWNWIND ON RWY 3 (WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE OUR PREVIOUS HDG ABOUT 260 DEGS) AND STARTED TO DSND TO 6000 FT. WHILE DSNDING, I HEARD NUMEROUS RADIO XMISSIONS TO OTHERS. WE WERE DIRECTED TO TURN 'S' AND THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME CONFUSION ON THE FREQ. I STARTED THE TURN AND REACHED APPROX S AND 6000 FT AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. AT THIS TIME I BELIEVE WE WERE ABOUT 3-4 NM SW OF THE FIELD. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WE WERE DIRECTED TO RESUME THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 3R AND DID SO WITH A R TURN AND AN UNEVENTFUL VISUAL APCH AND LNDG. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HEARD THE RWY 3R DESIGNATION. AFTER LNDG, WHILE TAXIING IN, WERE DIRECTED TO CALL THE TWR AFTER PARKING THE ACFT. 1 PAX IN OUR ACFT THEN MENTIONED THAT A LIGHT TWIN ACFT HAD PASSED APPROX 500 FT BELOW US WHILE WE WERE ON DOWNWIND. I NEITHER SAW NOR SPECIFICALLY NOTICED XMISSIONS FROM THIS ACFT WHILE WE WERE APCHING THE FIELD. THE PF IS A RETIRED AIRLINE CAPT WITH MORE THAN 15000 HRS IN CONVENTIONAL AND JET ACFT. HE IS AN ACTIVE GLIDER AND MOTOR GLIDER PLT. THE PNF (THE ACFT OWNER) IS A HIGHLY EXPERIENCED PLT WITH MORE THAN 6000 HRS, AN INST RATING, A CURRENT MEDICAL AND A CURRENT PROFICIENCY CHK IN THIS ACFT. PRC IS A VERY ACTIVE GA FIELD WITH NUMEROUS ONGOING TRAINING FACILITIES AND ACTIVITY. DURING OUR APCH TO THE FIELD, I HEARD RADIO XMISSIONS TO HELIS AND OTHER ACFT THAT APPEARED TO BE IN A TRAINING ENVIRONMENT. I AM ACCUSTOMED (FROM PAST EXPERIENCE) TO LAND ON THE LONGEST RWY AVAILABLE AT ANY ARPT. I MAY HAVE HEARD RWY 30 AND TRANSLATED IT IN MY MIND TO RWY 3. AS FAR AS I RECOLLECT, HOWEVER, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN -- BUT IT IS POSSIBLE. THERE APPEARED TO BE SOME DEV FROM STANDARD RWY NOMENCLATURE WITH '03, 30, AND 3' IN MY MIND, SORT OF BLENDING TOGETHER. I HAD THE FEELING THAT THE TWR WAS CONFUSED FROM THE XMISSIONS THAT I HEARD AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS BECAUSE OF US OR OTHER FLT ACTIVITY ON THE FIELD. RECOMMENDATIONS: STANDARD NOMENCLATURE SHOULD BE RIGIDLY ADHERED TO. THE PRESENCE OF FAMILIAR ACTIVITY ON A FIELD SHOULD NOT BE AN OCCASION TO DEVIATE FROM STANDARD PRACTICE. TRAINING FLTS MAY USE CONTRACTIONS AND SHORT PHRASES IN THE INTERESTS OF EFFICIENCY FOR THEIR OPS. TRANSIENT ACFT MAY NOT BE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THIS JARGON. THIS IS PARTICULARLY DISCONCERTING FOR VISITING ACFT. EVERY APCH IS AN IMPORTANT APCH, AND TIGHT COCKPIT DISCIPLINE SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. MY LAST SEVERAL YRS AS AN AIRLINE CAPT WERE SPENT IN ACFT WITH GLASS COCKPITS. ALTHOUGH I REVIEWED THE RWY LAYOUT AT PRC, SEVERAL YRS WITH GLASS DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY AND SEVERAL YRS OF NOT FLYING HIGH PERFORMANCE ACFT MAY HAVE SET ME UP FOR SOME CONFUSION. WHEN ONE FALLS BACK ON OLD HABITS, THERE HAD BETTER BE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT SUPPORTS THOSE HABITS -- OR ONE SHOULD DEVELOP NEW HABITS!

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.