Narrative:

My student and I were in left closed traffic for runway 19 left at sna airport. We had an near midair collision with a sikorsky helicopter. We had a standing request with the tower, for the 'option,' allowing us to do touch-and-goes, stop-and-goes, make low passes, etc. My student was working on high lndgs, but has more than 40 hours of flight time, and was competent at flying the pattern. On climb out, after one low pass, my student was climbing out at our school's recommended initial best angle of climb, and was passing through approximately 100 ft MSL, when the tower indicated that there was a helicopter departing, and that we should extend our upwind. We responded that we would extend our upwind, but did not acknowledge the helicopter traffic, as neither of us had that traffic in sight. At this point, in my mind, I did not think that the helicopter was a factor, as this tower instruction did not change our current heading, which was approximately 175 degrees magnetic. This departure heading complies with the normally published 15 degree turn to the left, at the end of runway 19L at john wayne airport. At roughly 250 ft MSL, my student began to say something about a helicopter, and before he could complete his sentence, I saw the helicopter enter my field of view on my student's side (front left quarter), ascending. I took the controls from the student, and quickly turned to the right about 45 degrees, while continuing our climb out, and successfully evading the traffic. At the closest point, I believe the helicopter was about 2 light aircraft lengths away, approximately 60 ft and vertical about 1/2 of that, roughly 30 ft. The visibility on that day was 5 mi in haze, with no other obstructions to vision. The visibility at these distances was definitely not a factor for either aircraft's aircrew. I didn't think it was problematic for the tower. My impression at the time was that the helicopter pilot never saw us. I was unable to accurately see the type of helicopter, or markings, as its tail was towards us. I later learned about its make and the type of departure that it was on, which was a left, climbing 270 degree departure, over the top of the airport. My belief is that the helicopter was issued a departure clearance prematurely, as another 10-15 seconds would have placed us within the field of view of the helicopter pilot and clear of a potential conflict. The other possibility, in my mind, was that the clearance was issued while the helicopter's flight path was clear. Then, he delayed his departure, creating the potential conflict, whereby the clearance should have been retracted by the tower. I requested a phone number, and contacted the tower to discuss the incident as soon as I was on the ground. I expressed my frustration with the situation and my desire to find a safe resolution to the problem, so that the potential for this sort of occurrence is limited in the future.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C172 INSTRUCTOR PLT RPTED AN NMAC WITH A SIKORSKI HELI WHILE IN THE PATTERN AT SNA ARPT.

Narrative: MY STUDENT AND I WERE IN L CLOSED TFC FOR RWY 19 L AT SNA ARPT. WE HAD AN NMAC WITH A SIKORSKY HELI. WE HAD A STANDING REQUEST WITH THE TWR, FOR THE 'OPTION,' ALLOWING US TO DO TOUCH-AND-GOES, STOP-AND-GOES, MAKE LOW PASSES, ETC. MY STUDENT WAS WORKING ON HIGH LNDGS, BUT HAS MORE THAN 40 HRS OF FLT TIME, AND WAS COMPETENT AT FLYING THE PATTERN. ON CLBOUT, AFTER ONE LOW PASS, MY STUDENT WAS CLBING OUT AT OUR SCHOOL'S RECOMMENDED INITIAL BEST ANGLE OF CLB, AND WAS PASSING THROUGH APPROX 100 FT MSL, WHEN THE TWR INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A HELI DEPARTING, AND THAT WE SHOULD EXTEND OUR UPWIND. WE RESPONDED THAT WE WOULD EXTEND OUR UPWIND, BUT DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE HELI TFC, AS NEITHER OF US HAD THAT TFC IN SIGHT. AT THIS POINT, IN MY MIND, I DID NOT THINK THAT THE HELI WAS A FACTOR, AS THIS TWR INSTRUCTION DID NOT CHANGE OUR CURRENT HDG, WHICH WAS APPROX 175 DEGS MAGNETIC. THIS DEP HDG COMPLIES WITH THE NORMALLY PUBLISHED 15 DEG TURN TO THE L, AT THE END OF RWY 19L AT JOHN WAYNE ARPT. AT ROUGHLY 250 FT MSL, MY STUDENT BEGAN TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT A HELI, AND BEFORE HE COULD COMPLETE HIS SENTENCE, I SAW THE HELI ENTER MY FIELD OF VIEW ON MY STUDENT'S SIDE (FRONT L QUARTER), ASCENDING. I TOOK THE CTLS FROM THE STUDENT, AND QUICKLY TURNED TO THE R ABOUT 45 DEGS, WHILE CONTINUING OUR CLBOUT, AND SUCCESSFULLY EVADING THE TFC. AT THE CLOSEST POINT, I BELIEVE THE HELI WAS ABOUT 2 LIGHT ACFT LENGTHS AWAY, APPROX 60 FT AND VERT ABOUT 1/2 OF THAT, ROUGHLY 30 FT. THE VISIBILITY ON THAT DAY WAS 5 MI IN HAZE, WITH NO OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS TO VISION. THE VISIBILITY AT THESE DISTANCES WAS DEFINITELY NOT A FACTOR FOR EITHER ACFT'S AIRCREW. I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS PROBLEMATIC FOR THE TWR. MY IMPRESSION AT THE TIME WAS THAT THE HELI PLT NEVER SAW US. I WAS UNABLE TO ACCURATELY SEE THE TYPE OF HELI, OR MARKINGS, AS ITS TAIL WAS TOWARDS US. I LATER LEARNED ABOUT ITS MAKE AND THE TYPE OF DEP THAT IT WAS ON, WHICH WAS A L, CLBING 270 DEG DEP, OVER THE TOP OF THE ARPT. MY BELIEF IS THAT THE HELI WAS ISSUED A DEP CLRNC PREMATURELY, AS ANOTHER 10-15 SECONDS WOULD HAVE PLACED US WITHIN THE FIELD OF VIEW OF THE HELI PLT AND CLR OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT. THE OTHER POSSIBILITY, IN MY MIND, WAS THAT THE CLRNC WAS ISSUED WHILE THE HELI'S FLT PATH WAS CLR. THEN, HE DELAYED HIS DEP, CREATING THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT, WHEREBY THE CLRNC SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETRACTED BY THE TWR. I REQUESTED A PHONE NUMBER, AND CONTACTED THE TWR TO DISCUSS THE INCIDENT AS SOON AS I WAS ON THE GND. I EXPRESSED MY FRUSTRATION WITH THE SIT AND MY DESIRE TO FIND A SAFE RESOLUTION TO THE PROB, SO THAT THE POTENTIAL FOR THIS SORT OF OCCURRENCE IS LIMITED IN THE FUTURE.

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.