37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 948791 |
Time | |
Date | 201105 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | CEW.Airport |
State Reference | FL |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | Small Transport |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | Landing |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Make Model Name | Small Aircraft Low Wing 1 Eng Retractable Gear |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | Landing |
Person 1 | |
Function | Instructor |
Qualification | Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Commercial |
Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 50 Flight Crew Total 2700 Flight Crew Type 2000 |
Events | |
Anomaly | Conflict Ground Conflict Critical Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
I was flying a training mission at cew with two other military pilots. We checked the ASOS at cew and winds favored runway 35. Eglin approach (124.25) cleared us for the VOR-a circle to runway 35 and approved our frequency change. We cleared aggressively on approach; TCAS did not show any traffic in the area; and eglin did not advise us of any traffic. We circled west for a left base and landed about 1;500 ft down the runway for a touch and go. Around the 3;000 ft remaining marker; while waiting for our flaps to track to a takeoff setting; we encountered a low wing aircraft that was on landing roll-out on runway 17. We both turned to avoid each other and passed each other with about 25 ft of wingtip separation. There was no damage or injuries. We taxied clear and realized that we had 122.925 in our radio; instead of 122.950; the proper CTAF frequency. However; we were in class east airspace; so radio communication was not required. We tuned the proper frequency and established communications with the other aircraft. They mentioned that they had just completed the ILS 17 with eglin approach. We had not heard any calls to or from that aircraft on eglin approach frequency. Eglin did advise one aircraft about us while we were turning base; but we did not hear who it was. Eglin has another sector frequency; 124.05 in that area and if the other aircraft was approaching from the north; they may have been working with a separate controller. It appears both aircraft were approved for simultaneous approaches to opposite ends of the same runway.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A military training aircraft completing a touch and go landing on CEW Runway 35 and a civilian landing on Runway 17 passed within 25 FT on the runway. Both aircraft had been communicating with Eglin TRACON but one aircraft was not on CTAF.
Narrative: I was flying a training mission at CEW with two other military pilots. We checked the ASOS at CEW and winds favored Runway 35. Eglin Approach (124.25) cleared us for the VOR-A circle to Runway 35 and approved our frequency change. We cleared aggressively on approach; TCAS did not show any traffic in the area; and Eglin did not advise us of any traffic. We circled west for a left base and landed about 1;500 FT down the runway for a touch and go. Around the 3;000 FT remaining marker; while waiting for our flaps to track to a takeoff setting; we encountered a low wing aircraft that was on landing roll-out on Runway 17. We both turned to avoid each other and passed each other with about 25 FT of wingtip separation. There was no damage or injuries. We taxied clear and realized that we had 122.925 in our radio; instead of 122.950; the proper CTAF frequency. However; we were in class E airspace; so radio communication was not required. We tuned the proper frequency and established communications with the other aircraft. They mentioned that they had just completed the ILS 17 with Eglin Approach. We had not heard any calls to or from that aircraft on Eglin Approach frequency. Eglin did advise one aircraft about us while we were turning base; but we did not hear who it was. Eglin has another sector frequency; 124.05 in that area and if the other aircraft was approaching from the north; they may have been working with a separate Controller. It appears both aircraft were approved for simultaneous approaches to opposite ends of the same runway.
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.