Two flight Instructors reported a NMAC at a non towered airport when one of the instructor's aircraft departed opposite direction into the path of the other instructor who was on short final for a practice instrument approach.
Synopsis
Two flight Instructors reported a NMAC at a non towered airport when one of the instructor's aircraft departed opposite direction into the path of the other instructor who was on short final for a practice instrument approach.
Narrative
Short field and soft field takeoff and landing training with student on [Runway] 20. Which is usually the runway favored by winds today the wind was 210 at 08kts. We heard Aircraft Y make a 10 mile call for the RNAV 02 approach in Watsonville. This approach has minimums for LPV 448 Ft and LNAV 700ft. we were on the left downwind abeam 02 numbers landing 20; we had been doing touch and goes at Watsonville with two other people in the pattern for the last 30 minutes. We had been making every call for each portion of the pattern. We had called final; landed and begun our takeoff for another touch and go when we hear an airplane call a 2 mile final for runway 02. aviate; navigate; communicate is what I taught my student he was executing a short field takeoff and and I looked for the aircraft on a final for 02 visually; I made a call we were departure leg. Aircraft Y said again he was an aircraft on 02. It's my understanding since we are right away traffic he would see and maintain physical separation; he knew we were staying in the pattern and climbing out. According to the AFH (Airplane Flying Handbook) and AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual); traffic in the pattern has right of way over traffic doing a straight in or instrument approach procedure. I had them in sight; if we would have continued our normal climb out we would have collided; I immediately took evasive action by taking flight controls and leveling the plane off at around 400 ft. I called the other aircraft and asked them to make an early turnout for us; the departure leg traffic traffic. We had the right away and were leveled off very close to the ground; we wanted to continue our climb; as we were very close to terrain and make our left crosswind turn to stay in the pattern. The CFII on board declined our request for them to maintain separation and complete an early turnout or modified missed approach procedure. The missed approach has the aircraft completing a climbing right turn directly into downwind traffic at 1200ft. The instructor on board said he had us in sight but continued the approach as if he had right of way; disrupting the flow of traffic and ignoring the 2 other aircraft in the pattern. He took no evasive action; to clear the right of way plane on takeoff or the aircraft downwind. I made another call to the instructor on board the aircraft doing the approach and let them know that we were turning crosswind and that they were turning at altitude into the downwind leg for 20; I asked them if they would consider doing a modified missed because we practice best practices here so they can give way to traffic in the pattern. He disagreed and said he would think about it; stating he wanted to fly the whole approach because his student was getting ready for a checkride. We had to level off at 900 ft to avoid a second collision with the aircraft climbing out of 1200 ft directly on the downwind and while we were on downwind; with less than 1000 ft separation horizontally. The other aircraft in the pattern chimed in and said in regards to my previous statement 'they're right; you have to maintain physical separation from all other aircraft when you're on an instrument approach; or a straight in and there are already people in the pattern' or something of the sort. Aircraft Y made no comment in return. KWVI is a busy general aviation; uncontrolled airfield; I've been flying here for many years. Many people conduct practice approaches into Watsonville. When there is traffic in the pattern; they give away and maintain separation for the right of way traffic already in the pattern. It is standard for pilots at Watsonville to practice these best practices; where they either make a modified missed away from the flow of the downwind traffic to maintain; vertical and horizontal separation or break the approach off to make their right hand turn back to Salinas without intercepting the departing traffic on 20 or the left downwind for the 20 runway.Spoke to the pilot. He did not take responsibility for his actions or express that he would change his approaches in the future. We agreed we had Less than 500ft vertical separation. He mentioned he had us in sight the whole time and we're not on a collision course and I mentioned that was because I was forced to level off and stop my climb out at a very low altitude to avoid him. To which I asked why he didn't take evasive action since and he responded that his flight school says they need to descend from the FAF to mine and he didn't do anything illegal. Pilot of Aircraft Y was unresponsive and uncompromising; disregarding multiple requests to abide by practices published in the AIM and AFH and instead displaying a hazardous attitude of prioritizing the completion of an approach with his student to prepare for an IFR checkride; instead of prioritizing aviation safety and right of way rules.
Second reporter narrative
The pilot flying holds a private pilot (ASEL) certificate; and the pilot not flying holds a commercial pilot (ASEL) certificate with an instrument rating and a flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating. The pilot flying was operating under simulated instrument conditions using a view limiting device; and the pilot not flying was monitoring visually for traffic while acting as the authorized instructor providing instrument training.After the pilot flying reported that they were established on a segment of the approach between RISPE and IFAFY; Norcal Approach Control issued a practice approach clearance for the RNAV 02 approach to the Watsonville airport (KWVI); stipulating to report going missed (as a missed approach was previously requested when NCT queried about the termination of the approach). Shortly after crossing IFAFY and prior to the final approach fix; norcal approved a frequency change to the KWVI CTAF and advised to contact them on the missed approach. The pilot flying switched the frequency to the CTAF for KWVI.After listening to other VFR aircraft in the pattern at KWVI; it was clear that runway 20 was in use. The pilot flying made regular traffic calls roughly every 2 miles beginning at a 10 mile final for 02 of the aircraft's position (using cardinal directions and distances so that non-IFR rated aircraft could understand the position) and intentions to fly the RNAV 02 ending in a missed approach.Upon descending through roughly 1;000 feet; a traffic call was made by opposite direction traffic that they were 'on the roll' on runway 20. The pilot not flying then made a traffic call stating that they were descending in the opposite direction of their departure. The pilot of the departing aircraft requested that we make 'an early turnout'. The pilot not flying responded by stating that 'we're working on it'. This requested turn was not briefed by the crew of the approaching aircraft and hence required quick coordination before the turn could be initiated. The pilot flying began a climbing right turn as published in the instrument approach procedure.Following this turn; there was another call from the departing traffic stating that the aircraft executing the missed approach procedure had turned directly into them as they were entering the downwind. There were several hundred feet of vertical separation; however the pilot of the departing aircraft advised that they had leveled off early.According to 14 CFR 91.113(e); in head-on scenarios each aircraft should alter to the right. The aircraft on the approach did in fact comply with the right of way rules by executing a right turn. The aircraft departing made a left turn to join the downwind whereas they should have made a right turn in accordance with 91.113(e).After speaking with the pilot of the departing aircraft after the termination of the flight; they referred to a 'modified missed' that is a climbing left turn rather than the published climbing right turn. AIM 4-3-22 section f states that 'Except in an emergency; aircraft cleared to practice instrument approaches must not deviate from the approved procedure until cleared to do so by the controller'. Since the missed approach is part of the instrument approach procedure and the clearance from norcal; deviation for a 'modified missed' using a climbing left turn does not comply with the recommended procedure as outlined in the AIM. Since norcal cleared the RNAV 02 with the published missed approach; the aircraft on the approach was complying with ATC instructions; which supersedes the 'Watsonville Best Practices'. Additionally; AC 90-66B states that 'an aircraft on an instrument approach flying on the final approach course to land would follow the requirements dictated by the approach procedure'.Upon having a conversation with the pilot of the departing traffic following the flight; they made several references to the 'Watsonville Best Practices' and AC-90-66B stating several times that they had the 'right of way'. AC-90-66B does state that aircraft on instrument approaches 'should clearly communicate on the CTAF and coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft'. The pilots of the arriving aircraft made several traffic calls announcing their position on the RNAV 02 approach; and they attempted to coordinate with the departing traffic when they announced that they were 'on the roll'.The pilot of the departing aircraft was insistent on their 'right of way'. According to 14 CFR 91.113(g); 'Aircraft; while on final approach to land or while landing; have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface'. The pilot of the departing aircraft made the decision to depart from runway 20 even though there was opposite direction traffic descending through 1;000 feet. The pilot of the departing aircraft made this decision after hearing transmissions from the arriving aircraft made in an effort to coordinate maneuvering and to not disrupt the flow of traffic. The aircraft that had the right of way in this case was the aircraft on the approach. After later speaking with the pilot of the departing aircraft; it was made clear that they was under the impression that as departing traffic; they had the right of way according to AC-90-66B.AC-90-66B is an advisory circular. Advisory circulars are not regulatory in nature; and therefore; federal aviation regulations must be followed and recognized. AC's are informative in nature; meaning they are neither binding nor regulatory. They define an acceptable means; but not the only means; of accomplishing or showing compliance with federal aviation regulations.In the future; it is imperative that aircraft doing approaches to runway 02 be extremely vigilant for aircraft operating in the traffic pattern for runway 20. Likewise; it is also important for aircraft operating in the pattern to be aware of opposite direction traffic announcing their position.Local colloquialisms such as the 'modified missed' are not published; nor are they known to pilots who do not frequently operate at KWVI. After speaking with the pilot of the departing aircraft; they stated that they departed assuming that the approach aircraft would execute such 'modified missed'. Operating on assumptions is extremely dangerous as many pilots are not familiar with the 'modified missed' and instead follow the published IAP.This situation could have been avoided completely if the pilot of the departing aircraft observed the right of way rules outlined in 91.113(g) and did not depart into opposite direction traffic below 1;000 feet on the approach.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.