Narrative:

This may be an unusual report because I believe my aircraft was mistakenly idented as possibly being involved in a near miss incident. However, whether my aircraft was involved or not is not important. This does point out a situation which is preventable. I was cleared for takeoff on a northwest runway, I believe runway 31. My intentions of departing eastbound had been given to ground control. West/O my request the tower cleared me for right downwind departure to facilitate the eastbound direction of my flight on V26. The tower also volunteered the frequency of rca departure (127.2) if I wanted traffic advisories. Rca was contacted and he assigned a discrete transponder code (1435). For some reason, he had trouble understanding my aircraft type (small aircraft) as he repeatedly (possibly 5 times) requested it. I replied to each request with either 'small aircraft name' or 'small aircraft nomenclature.' once he asked specifically if it was an small aircraft, to which I responded 'affirmative, an small aircraft,' and he even asked again after response. There may have been xmissions and/or reception problems. At no time did he advise me of other traffic nor did my wife (also a private pilot) nor I see any military aircraft. We did hear a transmission from another plane on our frequency (I do not remember whether it was on the tower or departure frequency) with an exclamation something like, 'that was a close one.' we were totally unaware of any problem until we arrived at our destination at mason city ia airport. Rca supervisor spoke with me on the phone to inquire of my knowledge of the incident. He, as were all controllers, was most professional. He was trying to ascertain our knowledge of the situation which we shared as in this report. He did mention that the procedure of right hand departures does have certain hazards as the departing aircraft from rca cross the approach path of military aircraft as they prepare for landing at ellsworth. He was most constructive in trying to prevent a recurrence of this situation again. Several thoughts come to mind. Are there or could there be improved communications between the 2 facs (civil and military) to coordinate such traffic? Could pilots be verbally warned of hazards, particularly transients? Should a change of procedures be instituted? I would like to repeat that I do not believe our aircraft was involved. My wife and I saw no other aircraft in our vicinity. The controller never questioned us or even made any mention to us about an incident at the time he was communicating with us. Someone else on our frequency did make a startled exclamation of concern re: 'that being a close one.' if I can share any other information please feel free to call me at my home. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter was never informed of the proximity of the 2 aircraft in this near midair collision. It was established during the telephone call that reporter's aircraft was the aircraft involved in the near midair with the MTR. Reporter was not told about the near midair collision before he left the rca controller's frequency because the MTR had not reported it yet. Reporter admitted that before he took off from rap, he did not take into consideration the proximity of rca to rap during his preflight planning. He was never really aware just how dangerous it was to turn eastbound from a downwind departure from rap through the final approach course of rca. His turn eastbound was made about 3.5 mi southeast of rca.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA DEPARTING CIVILIAN ARPT CAME IN CLOSE PROX WITH MTR ON FINAL APCH COURSE TO ADJACENT MIL ARPT.

Narrative: THIS MAY BE AN UNUSUAL RPT BECAUSE I BELIEVE MY ACFT WAS MISTAKENLY IDENTED AS POSSIBLY BEING INVOLVED IN A NEAR MISS INCIDENT. HOWEVER, WHETHER MY ACFT WAS INVOLVED OR NOT IS NOT IMPORTANT. THIS DOES POINT OUT A SITUATION WHICH IS PREVENTABLE. I WAS CLRED FOR TKOF ON A NW RWY, I BELIEVE RWY 31. MY INTENTIONS OF DEPARTING EBND HAD BEEN GIVEN TO GND CTL. W/O MY REQUEST THE TWR CLRED ME FOR RIGHT DOWNWIND DEP TO FACILITATE THE EBND DIRECTION OF MY FLT ON V26. THE TWR ALSO VOLUNTEERED THE FREQ OF RCA DEP (127.2) IF I WANTED TFC ADVISORIES. RCA WAS CONTACTED AND HE ASSIGNED A DISCRETE TRANSPONDER CODE (1435). FOR SOME REASON, HE HAD TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING MY ACFT TYPE (SMA) AS HE REPEATEDLY (POSSIBLY 5 TIMES) REQUESTED IT. I REPLIED TO EACH REQUEST WITH EITHER 'SMA NAME' OR 'SMA NOMENCLATURE.' ONCE HE ASKED SPECIFICALLY IF IT WAS AN SMA, TO WHICH I RESPONDED 'AFFIRMATIVE, AN SMA,' AND HE EVEN ASKED AGAIN AFTER RESPONSE. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN XMISSIONS AND/OR RECEPTION PROBS. AT NO TIME DID HE ADVISE ME OF OTHER TFC NOR DID MY WIFE (ALSO A PVT PLT) NOR I SEE ANY MIL ACFT. WE DID HEAR A XMISSION FROM ANOTHER PLANE ON OUR FREQ (I DO NOT REMEMBER WHETHER IT WAS ON THE TWR OR DEP FREQ) WITH AN EXCLAMATION SOMETHING LIKE, 'THAT WAS A CLOSE ONE.' WE WERE TOTALLY UNAWARE OF ANY PROB UNTIL WE ARRIVED AT OUR DEST AT MASON CITY IA ARPT. RCA SUPVR SPOKE WITH ME ON THE PHONE TO INQUIRE OF MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT. HE, AS WERE ALL CTLRS, WAS MOST PROFESSIONAL. HE WAS TRYING TO ASCERTAIN OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATION WHICH WE SHARED AS IN THIS RPT. HE DID MENTION THAT THE PROC OF RIGHT HAND DEPS DOES HAVE CERTAIN HAZARDS AS THE DEPARTING ACFT FROM RCA CROSS THE APCH PATH OF MIL ACFT AS THEY PREPARE FOR LNDG AT ELLSWORTH. HE WAS MOST CONSTRUCTIVE IN TRYING TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THIS SITUATION AGAIN. SEVERAL THOUGHTS COME TO MIND. ARE THERE OR COULD THERE BE IMPROVED COMS BTWN THE 2 FACS (CIVIL AND MIL) TO COORDINATE SUCH TFC? COULD PLTS BE VERBALLY WARNED OF HAZARDS, PARTICULARLY TRANSIENTS? SHOULD A CHANGE OF PROCS BE INSTITUTED? I WOULD LIKE TO REPEAT THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE OUR ACFT WAS INVOLVED. MY WIFE AND I SAW NO OTHER ACFT IN OUR VICINITY. THE CTLR NEVER QUESTIONED US OR EVEN MADE ANY MENTION TO US ABOUT AN INCIDENT AT THE TIME HE WAS COMMUNICATING WITH US. SOMEONE ELSE ON OUR FREQ DID MAKE A STARTLED EXCLAMATION OF CONCERN RE: 'THAT BEING A CLOSE ONE.' IF I CAN SHARE ANY OTHER INFO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL ME AT MY HOME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR WAS NEVER INFORMED OF THE PROX OF THE 2 ACFT IN THIS NMAC. IT WAS ESTABLISHED DURING THE TELEPHONE CALL THAT RPTR'S ACFT WAS THE ACFT INVOLVED IN THE NEAR MIDAIR WITH THE MTR. RPTR WAS NOT TOLD ABOUT THE NMAC BEFORE HE LEFT THE RCA CTLR'S FREQ BECAUSE THE MTR HAD NOT RPTED IT YET. RPTR ADMITTED THAT BEFORE HE TOOK OFF FROM RAP, HE DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PROX OF RCA TO RAP DURING HIS PREFLT PLANNING. HE WAS NEVER REALLY AWARE JUST HOW DANGEROUS IT WAS TO TURN EBND FROM A DOWNWIND DEP FROM RAP THROUGH THE FINAL APCH COURSE OF RCA. HIS TURN EBND WAS MADE ABOUT 3.5 MI SE OF RCA.

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.