 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
PA31 landing fai misunderstands ATC clearance, has conflict with PA18, and both aircraft are instructed to circle.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 596447 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200310 |
| Day | Tue |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : fai.airport |
| State Reference | AK |
| Altitude | agl single value : 800 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : fai.tracon tower : fai.tower |
| Operator | common carrier : charter |
| Make Model Name | PA-31 Navajo Chieftan/Mojave/Navajo T1020 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Plan | VFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : fai.tower |
| Operator | general aviation : personal |
| Make Model Name | PA-18/19 Super Cub |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : traffic pattern |
| Flight Plan | VFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : charter |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 380 flight time total : 5035 flight time type : 1050 |
| ASRS Report | 596447 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne critical non adherence : clearance non adherence : far |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance flight crew : executed go around flight crew : took evasive action |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 900 vertical : 400 |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Inter Facility Coordination Failure |
Narrative:
I was cleared to land on left downwind runway 1R. Also I acknowledged that I had B737 in sight 10 mi on final runway 1L. Controller didn't specify to land #2 after B737 for other runway 1R. I assumed that I could land short for runway 1R, because I had B737 in sight and approach cleared me to land runway 1R and not specify traffic sequencing for landing. When I turned to base for a short final runway 1R, it came to a conflict situation with supercub for a ski-strip runway 1R. Then I was told to circle to land for the same runway, and supercub was circling in a different direction to land for the ski-strip. My mistake, that I accepted short final without permission. Even tower didn't specify traffic pattern with other traffic. It was my misunderstanding somehow in that traffic flow, I just thought that tower wants to do short final before coming B737 on parallel runway 1L. At the same time I paid all my attention on coming B737 on parallel runway 1L. That's why I missed the other traffic, that came to a ski-strip. I think it was not so clear on approach clearance and then tower, but I think I accept my own responsibility for my action. I suppose to clarify and confirm my clearance with the tower, or approach, before making own decision, and never accept short final without confirmation with the tower. (I accepted short approachs all the time in the past.) it was one additional reason for me to believe that is going to be another one for me!
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: PA31 LNDG FAI MISUNDERSTANDS ATC CLRNC, HAS CONFLICT WITH PA18, AND BOTH ACFT ARE INSTRUCTED TO CIRCLE.
Narrative: I WAS CLRED TO LAND ON L DOWNWIND RWY 1R. ALSO I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT I HAD B737 IN SIGHT 10 MI ON FINAL RWY 1L. CTLR DIDN'T SPECIFY TO LAND #2 AFTER B737 FOR OTHER RWY 1R. I ASSUMED THAT I COULD LAND SHORT FOR RWY 1R, BECAUSE I HAD B737 IN SIGHT AND APCH CLRED ME TO LAND RWY 1R AND NOT SPECIFY TFC SEQUENCING FOR LNDG. WHEN I TURNED TO BASE FOR A SHORT FINAL RWY 1R, IT CAME TO A CONFLICT SIT WITH SUPERCUB FOR A SKI-STRIP RWY 1R. THEN I WAS TOLD TO CIRCLE TO LAND FOR THE SAME RWY, AND SUPERCUB WAS CIRCLING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION TO LAND FOR THE SKI-STRIP. MY MISTAKE, THAT I ACCEPTED SHORT FINAL WITHOUT PERMISSION. EVEN TWR DIDN'T SPECIFY TFC PATTERN WITH OTHER TFC. IT WAS MY MISUNDERSTANDING SOMEHOW IN THAT TFC FLOW, I JUST THOUGHT THAT TWR WANTS TO DO SHORT FINAL BEFORE COMING B737 ON PARALLEL RWY 1L. AT THE SAME TIME I PAID ALL MY ATTN ON COMING B737 ON PARALLEL RWY 1L. THAT'S WHY I MISSED THE OTHER TFC, THAT CAME TO A SKI-STRIP. I THINK IT WAS NOT SO CLR ON APCH CLRNC AND THEN TWR, BUT I THINK I ACCEPT MY OWN RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY ACTION. I SUPPOSE TO CLARIFY AND CONFIRM MY CLRNC WITH THE TWR, OR APCH, BEFORE MAKING OWN DECISION, AND NEVER ACCEPT SHORT FINAL WITHOUT CONFIRMATION WITH THE TWR. (I ACCEPTED SHORT APCHS ALL THE TIME IN THE PAST.) IT WAS ONE ADDITIONAL REASON FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER ONE FOR ME!
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.