A small aircraft flight instructor practicing ILS approaches to sgh runway 24 disclaimed a reported ...

Narrative:

We had just completed the ILS-24 at sgh. After a touch and go; we executed the published approach exactly as published; turning back to the sgh VOR as per the IAP. Turning back at 3;000 ft; we proceeded to the VOR and contacted dayton approach; asking for the ILS-Z to ffo. (Note: our aircraft was never above 3;000 ft MSL during the missed approach; as that is the published altitude on the IAP.) somewhere in this maneuver; it is alleged by an army king air that we passed within 250 ft of him in a 'near-miss.' conversation with the other aircraft's home base uncovered the following points: 1) the king air was at 4;500 ft MSL on a nine mile left base for a visual approach to runway 23L at wright patterson AFB (ffo). 2) the king air got a TCAS warning at 4;500 ft and an RA of down (repeat down). 3) the altitude at which the 'near miss' is said to have occurred is unknown at this time; presumably at 3;000 ft MSL. I; as pilot in command of the training aircraft and safety observer on the instrument training flight; never saw the king air or any other aircraft during the segment of the flight that is discussed here. If the RA from the TCAS directed down; the collision threat had to be higher than the king air. Our aircraft at 3;000 ft (1;500 ft below the king air) could not have triggered the down RA. By pushing over and descending; if there was a 'near miss;' it may have been generated by the king air as he evaded down as directed by the RA. (But one would think a 250 ft pass by a king air would have been seen by our crew. It was not! Weather was not a factor; being absolutely clear with unlimited visibility. Sgh tower was closed at the time of the close encounter; and the airspace was a mix of class east and class G at the time of the incident. The best guess is that the alleged near miss; if one did in fact occur; occurred in class east airspace. No control or advisories were exercised or offered by dayton TRACON or ffo tower for my flight during the period of the alleged incident. The above contains any and all info on the event as is known at the time of submission. Much is missing; and may be irretrievable from TRACON tapes or tower tapes from ffo. Most of the data on the king air is from that crew's comments to ffo tower.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A small aircraft Flight Instructor practicing ILS approaches to SGH Runway 24 disclaimed a reported near miss with a military King Air on a visual approach to FFO Runway 23 because the reported altitude at time of the conflict was apparently incorrect.

Narrative: We had just completed the ILS-24 at SGH. After a touch and go; we executed the published approach exactly as published; turning back to the SGH VOR as per the IAP. Turning back at 3;000 FT; we proceeded to the VOR and contacted DAYTON Approach; asking for the ILS-Z to FFO. (NOTE: Our aircraft was never above 3;000 FT MSL during the missed approach; as that is the published altitude on the IAP.) Somewhere in this maneuver; it is alleged by an Army King Air that we passed within 250 FT of him in a 'near-miss.' Conversation with the other aircraft's home base uncovered the following points: 1) The King Air was at 4;500 FT MSL on a nine mile left base for a visual approach to Runway 23L at Wright Patterson AFB (FFO). 2) The King Air got a TCAS warning at 4;500 FT and an RA of DOWN (repeat DOWN). 3) The altitude at which the 'near miss' is said to have occurred is unknown at this time; presumably at 3;000 FT MSL. I; as pilot in command of the training aircraft and safety observer on the instrument training flight; never saw the King Air or any other aircraft during the segment of the flight that is discussed here. If the RA from the TCAS directed DOWN; the collision threat had to be higher than the King Air. Our aircraft at 3;000 FT (1;500 FT below the King Air) could not have triggered the DOWN RA. By pushing over and descending; if there was a 'near miss;' it may have been generated by the King Air as he evaded DOWN as directed by the RA. (But one would think a 250 FT pass by a King Air would have been seen by our crew. It was not! Weather was not a factor; being absolutely clear with unlimited visibility. SGH Tower was closed at the time of the close encounter; and the airspace was a mix of Class E and Class G at the time of the incident. The best guess is that the alleged near miss; if one did in fact occur; occurred in Class E airspace. No control or advisories were exercised or offered by DAYTON TRACON or FFO Tower for my flight during the period of the alleged incident. The above contains any and all info on the event as is known at the time of submission. Much is missing; and may be irretrievable from TRACON tapes or Tower tapes from FFO. Most of the data on the King Air is from that crew's comments to FFO Tower.

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.

Attributes
ACN	944728
Time
Date	201104
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	SGH.Airport
State Reference	OH
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft Low Wing 1 Eng Fixed Gear
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Flight Plan	VFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	King Air C90 E90
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Person 1
Function	Pilot Not Flying Instructor
Qualification	Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Commercial Flight Crew Multiengine
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 50 Flight Crew Total 11600 Flight Crew Type 6000
Events
Anomaly	Conflict NMAC
Miss Distance	Horizontal 250

A small aircraft flight instructor practicing ILS approaches to sgh runway 24 disclaimed a reported near miss with a military king air on a visual approach to ffo runway 23 because the reported altitude at time of the conflict was apparently incorrect.