 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Experimental aircraft pilot was informed after landing that he had a conflict with another aircraft in the aerobatic box. Reporter was aware of the box and disputes this claim.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 839650 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200906 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Experimental |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Descent |
| Route In Use | Visual Approach |
| Flight Plan | None |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Experimental |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Flight Plan | None |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Flying Single Pilot |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Experience | Air Traffic Control Military 7 Air Traffic Control Non Radar 25 Air Traffic Control Radar 25 Flight Crew Last 90 Days 55 Flight Crew Total 14650 Flight Crew Type 300 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Conflict Airborne Conflict |
| Miss Distance | Horizontal 500 Vertical 500 |
Narrative:
When I approached the airport; I reported my position on unicom CTAF at 10 and 5 miles south; inbound. I entered the traffic pattern using the proper technique and procedures and altitudes. No warning or word of aerobatic traffic or potential conflicts was mentioned on CTAF by the contest monitors. When I landed; I was told I had interrupted the aerobatic box while it was in use. This was patently untrue; as I entered the traffic pattern; adjacent to the aerobatic box; not in it. This airspace is NOTAM'ed in use and identified specifically with definite boundaries. My arrival path bypassed these boundaries; completely. If the aircraft supposedly conflicting was close to my position; that aircraft was outside the specified aerobatic box. I did not see any other aircraft during my arrival.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Experimental aircraft pilot was informed after landing that he had a conflict with another aircraft in the aerobatic box. Reporter was aware of the box and disputes this claim.
Narrative: When I approached the airport; I reported my position on UNICOM CTAF at 10 and 5 miles south; inbound. I entered the traffic pattern using the proper technique and procedures and altitudes. No warning or word of aerobatic traffic or potential conflicts was mentioned on CTAF by the contest monitors. When I landed; I was told I had interrupted the aerobatic box while it was in use. This was patently untrue; as I entered the traffic pattern; adjacent to the aerobatic box; not in it. This airspace is NOTAM'ed in use and identified specifically with definite boundaries. My arrival path bypassed these boundaries; completely. If the aircraft supposedly conflicting was close to my position; that aircraft was outside the specified aerobatic box. I did not see any other aircraft during my arrival.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.