Narrative:

I was on a training flight with a student working towards his commercial asel certificate. We were in his flying club's C172. Our preflight briefing included discussion on collision avoidance and scanning procedures. Clearing was completed before our maneuvers. Strobe/anti-collision lights and transponder were in use throughout the flight; and we monitored the home field tower frequency. While operating in the practice area north of the field; outside of bozeman's class D airspace; we began a chandelle to the left; starting from a southerly heading. While 1/2 way through the maneuver; we saw the underside of a regional jet as it turned for a left base into bozeman's runway 12. The jet was about 1 1/2 - 2 mi away horizontally; and approximately 300 ft above our altitude. Although surprised; I recognized that there was no collision hazard and our paths were diverging; so no evasive maneuvering on our part was necessary. At this same time; the jet crew told bozeman tower that they had an RA for traffic; and climbed. I noted our altitude at this time as 6800 ft MSL; and our GPS distance from the bozeman airport reference point was 6.3 NM. We were maneuvering outside of and almost above bozeman class D airspace. There should not have been a jet circle for landing at bozeman this far away from the airport. I have noticed 2 trends which contributed to this occurrence: 1) jet crews have been exercising poor discipline arriving VFR into bozeman. 5 mi out and 2500 ft AGL while turning base leg is contrary to good practice. Without these professionals maintaining strict pattern discipline; other smaller; slower GA traffic have great difficulty anticipating flight paths; separation times; and safe (non conflicting) operating areas. Many of these crews seem to have no understanding; appreciation or experience with single engine GA recreational flying and are clueless as to how the non airline world operates. It is not uncommon for jets to report a base leg entry 5 or 6 mi from the airport -- well outside of the air traffic area. 2) bozeman tower is a contract tower; and its competence is well below that of an FAA tower. The staff at this busy GA airport regularly displays amateur and airline-biased handling; rushes smaller GA traffic to accommodate carriers; has difficulty handling separation between aircraft of various speeds; and works traffic outside of their airspace in a manner which can lead a crew to believe that they have more capabilities and responsibilities than they actually do. Invitations to educate them on the problems and needs of local GA operators have gone unanswered. As a professional career instructor; I can always count on the tower to provide my clients with numerous examples of poor; ill-planned; and unsafe instructions. As bozeman gallatin field pushes for radar services; these problems will only compound as traffic increases and tower's skills are further taxed.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT PLT OF C172 ENCOUNTER INBOUND ACR TFC WHILE PRACTICING MANEUVERS IN THE VICINITY OF THE CLASS D BOUNDARY.

Narrative: I WAS ON A TRAINING FLT WITH A STUDENT WORKING TOWARDS HIS COMMERCIAL ASEL CERTIFICATE. WE WERE IN HIS FLYING CLUB'S C172. OUR PREFLT BRIEFING INCLUDED DISCUSSION ON COLLISION AVOIDANCE AND SCANNING PROCS. CLRING WAS COMPLETED BEFORE OUR MANEUVERS. STROBE/ANTI-COLLISION LIGHTS AND XPONDER WERE IN USE THROUGHOUT THE FLT; AND WE MONITORED THE HOME FIELD TWR FREQ. WHILE OPERATING IN THE PRACTICE AREA N OF THE FIELD; OUTSIDE OF BOZEMAN'S CLASS D AIRSPACE; WE BEGAN A CHANDELLE TO THE L; STARTING FROM A SOUTHERLY HDG. WHILE 1/2 WAY THROUGH THE MANEUVER; WE SAW THE UNDERSIDE OF A REGIONAL JET AS IT TURNED FOR A L BASE INTO BOZEMAN'S RWY 12. THE JET WAS ABOUT 1 1/2 - 2 MI AWAY HORIZONTALLY; AND APPROX 300 FT ABOVE OUR ALT. ALTHOUGH SURPRISED; I RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS NO COLLISION HAZARD AND OUR PATHS WERE DIVERGING; SO NO EVASIVE MANEUVERING ON OUR PART WAS NECESSARY. AT THIS SAME TIME; THE JET CREW TOLD BOZEMAN TWR THAT THEY HAD AN RA FOR TFC; AND CLBED. I NOTED OUR ALT AT THIS TIME AS 6800 FT MSL; AND OUR GPS DISTANCE FROM THE BOZEMAN ARPT REF POINT WAS 6.3 NM. WE WERE MANEUVERING OUTSIDE OF AND ALMOST ABOVE BOZEMAN CLASS D AIRSPACE. THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A JET CIRCLE FOR LNDG AT BOZEMAN THIS FAR AWAY FROM THE ARPT. I HAVE NOTICED 2 TRENDS WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THIS OCCURRENCE: 1) JET CREWS HAVE BEEN EXERCISING POOR DISCIPLINE ARRIVING VFR INTO BOZEMAN. 5 MI OUT AND 2500 FT AGL WHILE TURNING BASE LEG IS CONTRARY TO GOOD PRACTICE. WITHOUT THESE PROFESSIONALS MAINTAINING STRICT PATTERN DISCIPLINE; OTHER SMALLER; SLOWER GA TFC HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY ANTICIPATING FLT PATHS; SEPARATION TIMES; AND SAFE (NON CONFLICTING) OPERATING AREAS. MANY OF THESE CREWS SEEM TO HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING; APPRECIATION OR EXPERIENCE WITH SINGLE ENG GA RECREATIONAL FLYING AND ARE CLUELESS AS TO HOW THE NON AIRLINE WORLD OPERATES. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR JETS TO RPT A BASE LEG ENTRY 5 OR 6 MI FROM THE ARPT -- WELL OUTSIDE OF THE ATA. 2) BOZEMAN TWR IS A CONTRACT TWR; AND ITS COMPETENCE IS WELL BELOW THAT OF AN FAA TWR. THE STAFF AT THIS BUSY GA ARPT REGULARLY DISPLAYS AMATEUR AND AIRLINE-BIASED HANDLING; RUSHES SMALLER GA TFC TO ACCOMMODATE CARRIERS; HAS DIFFICULTY HANDLING SEPARATION BTWN ACFT OF VARIOUS SPDS; AND WORKS TFC OUTSIDE OF THEIR AIRSPACE IN A MANNER WHICH CAN LEAD A CREW TO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE MORE CAPABILITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAN THEY ACTUALLY DO. INVITATIONS TO EDUCATE THEM ON THE PROBS AND NEEDS OF LCL GA OPERATORS HAVE GONE UNANSWERED. AS A PROFESSIONAL CAREER INSTRUCTOR; I CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON THE TWR TO PROVIDE MY CLIENTS WITH NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF POOR; ILL-PLANNED; AND UNSAFE INSTRUCTIONS. AS BOZEMAN GALLATIN FIELD PUSHES FOR RADAR SVCS; THESE PROBS WILL ONLY COMPOUND AS TFC INCREASES AND TWR'S SKILLS ARE FURTHER TAXED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.