SMA X NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC HAD NMAC WITH SMA Y. PLTDEV. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT.

Date: 1991-12 · Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing; Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear

Anomalies: deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|ground-event-encounter-ground-equipment-issue|ground-event-encounter-loss-of-aircraft-control|conflict-nmac|deviation-track-heading-all-types|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-clearance

Synopsis

SMA X NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC HAD NMAC WITH SMA Y. PLTDEV. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT.

Narrative

SMA X; A STUDENT PLT; CALLED READY FOR DEP AT END OF RWY 35 FOR TOUCH AND GO ON THE PATTERN. I TOLD SMA X 'RWY 35; MAKE R CLOSED TFC; MAINTAIN AT OR BELOW 2000; CLRED FOR TKOF; TFC IS AN SMA ON 2 1/2 MI FINAL RWY 13.' SMA X ACKNOWLEDGED AND DEPARTED. MY ATTN WAS DIVERTED TO A GND SITUATION INVOLVING A PROGRESSIVE TAXI; I DID NOT SEE SMA X MAKE HIS XWIND TURNOUT. APPROX 30 SECONDS LATER; SMA Y ON THE ILS RWY 13 FINAL APCH COURSE; ADVISED HE HAD A NEAR MISS WITH AN SMA AND REQUESTED ITS LOCATION. THE PLT OF SMA X REPLIED HE WAS ON A L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 35. BOTH ACFT LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. A NUMBER OF FACTORS ENTERED INTO THIS NEAR MISS SITUATION. THE PLT OF SMA X DID NOT FOLLOW ATC INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER R TFC; EVEN AFTER PERTINENT TFC WAS ISSUED. PLT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT A L TURNOUT OFF RWY 35 WOULD HAVE PUT HIS ACFT IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH SMA Y. CTLR SHOULD HAVE ENSURED SMA X COMPLIED WITH ATC INSTRUCTIONS; ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE PROX OF ACFT INVOLVED AND MARGINAL WX CONDITIONS. INSTEAD; CTLR'S ATTN WAS DRAWN TO A SITUATION OF LESSER PRIORITY (GND CTL INSTRUCTIONS). THE UNIVERSITY FLT SCHOOL THE STUDENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTITUTES A LARGE NUMBER OF OPS AT THE ARPT; RELATIONS BTWN THE TWR AND SCHOOL ARE CLOSE. CONSEQUENTLY; I FEEL SOME COMPLACENCY ON MY PART CONCERNING THE PROFICIENCY OF THE STUDENT PLT LED ME TO DIVERT MY ATTN TO A LESSER PRIORITY. I ASSUMED THE PLT OF SMA X WAS CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING ATC INSTRUCTIONS BASED UPON PAST EXPERIENCE. I LET MY GUARD DOWN AT A MOST INOPPORTUNE TIME. PRESENT DURING THIS INCIDENT WAS A DEVELOPMENTAL WHO WAS WATCHING THE LCL CTLR. HE WATCHED SMA X MAKE A L TURNOUT; WAS AT LEAST COGNIZANT OF A DEVELOPING CONFLICT; YET WAS UNSURE WHETHER HE SHOULD 'CHALLENGE' THE OPS OF AN FPL. INSTEAD; HE ASKED ME IF SMA X WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN R TFC; AND I REPLIED AFFIRMATIVELY. IT NEVER STRUCK ME THAT SOMETHING WAS WRONG UNTIL AFTER THE FACT. HAD THE DEVELOPMENTAL SAID SOMETHING ABOUT L TFC; I MAY HAVE RESPONDED MUCH QUICKER TO THE DEVELOPING SITUATION.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.