Narrative:

Being a flying - controller, I, better than anyone should know there is no place in the flying community where less than 'perfect standard phraseology 'should be used. On initial contact with clearance delivery to depart the rochester arsa I requested an on course heading of 330 degree. However, instead of properly stating the separate digits (i.e. Heading three three zero) I made my request using group form (i.e. Three thirty). To further complicate the matter, my requested altitude was 5500' which was inappropriate for direction of flight. My only justification for the incorrect altitude is that I prefer to be at least 5000' above the terrain when conducting spin training. The person working clearance, knowing I was in the aircraft assumed I would never fly an inappropriate altitude and thought my on course heading was 030 degree. After departure, radar simply turned me on course properly assuming that the 030 degree heading would keep me well clear of the runway 4 departure corridor. Local control assuming the same, cleared air carrier medium large transport for takeoff on runway 4. This resulted in a conflict between myself and medium large transport one mile north of the airport. As I rolled out on the 330 degree heading, I saw air carrier medium large transport departing runway 4. Since I was crossing the runway 4 centerline my only thought was that tower had put medium large transport on runway heading to pass behind me and that they had me in sight. However, as medium large transport passed thru 1200 MSL he began a turn to a heading of 360 degree to comply with the runway 4 departure procedure. Knowing I could never out climb the air carrier medium large transport, I immediately reduced power to idle and dove below the aircraft. As the jet passed over me I would estimate we passed within 200' of each other. After reviewing this tape, this incident could have been avoided if any of the following had occurred: I had used standard phraseology when giving my heading to clearance. When local control initially said 'proceed on course', I should have restated my heading, especially since I knew 330 degree was outside the turn corridor allocated to local control at rochester. Local then would have noticed the difference. When radar once again stated 'proceed on course' I should have restated my requested heading, and radar would have noticed the difference with the heading on the flight strip. If all the controllers (clearance local and departure) had read back or restated the heading of 030 degree instead of just using 'proceed on course' I would have picked up on the wrong heading.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE PROX GA SMA ACR MLG IN ROC ATA.

Narrative: BEING A FLYING - CTLR, I, BETTER THAN ANYONE SHOULD KNOW THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE FLYING COMMUNITY WHERE LESS THAN 'PERFECT STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY 'SHOULD BE USED. ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH CLRNC DELIVERY TO DEPART THE ROCHESTER ARSA I REQUESTED AN ON COURSE HEADING OF 330 DEG. HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF PROPERLY STATING THE SEPARATE DIGITS (I.E. HEADING THREE THREE ZERO) I MADE MY REQUEST USING GROUP FORM (I.E. THREE THIRTY). TO FURTHER COMPLICATE THE MATTER, MY REQUESTED ALTITUDE WAS 5500' WHICH WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR DIRECTION OF FLIGHT. MY ONLY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INCORRECT ALTITUDE IS THAT I PREFER TO BE AT LEAST 5000' ABOVE THE TERRAIN WHEN CONDUCTING SPIN TRAINING. THE PERSON WORKING CLRNC, KNOWING I WAS IN THE ACFT ASSUMED I WOULD NEVER FLY AN INAPPROPRIATE ALTITUDE AND THOUGHT MY ON COURSE HEADING WAS 030 DEG. AFTER DEPARTURE, RADAR SIMPLY TURNED ME ON COURSE PROPERLY ASSUMING THAT THE 030 DEG HEADING WOULD KEEP ME WELL CLEAR OF THE RUNWAY 4 DEPARTURE CORRIDOR. LOCAL CONTROL ASSUMING THE SAME, CLRED ACR MLG FOR TAKEOFF ON RUNWAY 4. THIS RESULTED IN A CONFLICT BETWEEN MYSELF AND MLG ONE MILE NORTH OF THE AIRPORT. AS I ROLLED OUT ON THE 330 DEG HEADING, I SAW ACR MLG DEPARTING RUNWAY 4. SINCE I WAS XING THE RUNWAY 4 CENTERLINE MY ONLY THOUGHT WAS THAT TWR HAD PUT MLG ON RUNWAY HEADING TO PASS BEHIND ME AND THAT THEY HAD ME IN SIGHT. HOWEVER, AS MLG PASSED THRU 1200 MSL HE BEGAN A TURN TO A HEADING OF 360 DEG TO COMPLY WITH THE RUNWAY 4 DEPARTURE PROCEDURE. KNOWING I COULD NEVER OUT CLIMB THE ACR MLG, I IMMEDIATELY REDUCED POWER TO IDLE AND DOVE BELOW THE ACFT. AS THE JET PASSED OVER ME I WOULD ESTIMATE WE PASSED WITHIN 200' OF EACH OTHER. AFTER REVIEWING THIS TAPE, THIS INCIDENT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING HAD OCCURRED: I HAD USED STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY WHEN GIVING MY HEADING TO CLRNC. WHEN LOCAL CONTROL INITIALLY SAID 'PROCEED ON COURSE', I SHOULD HAVE RESTATED MY HEADING, ESPECIALLY SINCE I KNEW 330 DEG WAS OUTSIDE THE TURN CORRIDOR ALLOCATED TO LOCAL CONTROL AT ROCHESTER. LOCAL THEN WOULD HAVE NOTICED THE DIFFERENCE. WHEN RADAR ONCE AGAIN STATED 'PROCEED ON COURSE' I SHOULD HAVE RESTATED MY REQUESTED HEADING, AND RADAR WOULD HAVE NOTICED THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE HEADING ON THE FLIGHT STRIP. IF ALL THE CTLRS (CLRNC LOCAL AND DEPARTURE) HAD READ BACK OR RESTATED THE HEADING OF 030 DEG INSTEAD OF JUST USING 'PROCEED ON COURSE' I WOULD HAVE PICKED UP ON THE WRONG HEADING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.