VFR SMA HAS NMAC WITH VFR SMT CLBING OFF CGX ARPT AND AT THE EDGE OF THE ATA.

Date: 1993-07 · Aircraft: Small Aircraft

Anomalies: conflict-nmac

Synopsis

VFR SMA HAS NMAC WITH VFR SMT CLBING OFF CGX ARPT AND AT THE EDGE OF THE ATA.

Narrative

ON THIS HAZY MIDSUMMER AFTERNOON; I WAS HDG VFR TO THE OSHKOSH FLY-IN AND DECIDED TO STOP IN CHICAGO TO SEE SOME FRIENDS. ALTHOUGH I RARELY FILE A FLT PLAN WHEN FLYING VFR; I TRY TO STAY IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH ATC FOR TA'S; AND I WAS TALKING TO CHICAGO APCH AS I NEARED CHICAGO FROM THE SE. THEY VECTORED ME AROUND AND BTWN LCL ARPTS (GARY; LANSING) AND STAYED WITH ME UNTIL I HAD CHICAGO MEIGS FIELD IN SIGHT. AT THAT POINT I WAS ALREADY WITHIN THE MEIGS ATA; AND WHEN THEY APPROVED MY FREQ CHANGE TO THE TWR; I CALLED THE TWR IMMEDIATELY. THE FIELD WAS NOT BUSY -- THERE WAS ONLY 1 OTHER ACFT IN THE ATA; AN SMT Y; ON THE GND TAXIING TO THE ACTIVE RWY 18. NONETHELESS; THE TWR CTLR DID NOT RESPOND TO MY FIRST 3 OR 4 CALLS. WHEN SHE FINALLY DID; I RECOGNIZED HER VOICE FROM THE ATIS; WHICH I HAD HAD A LOT OF TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE OF HER POOR DICTION AND BECAUSE SHE HAD RUN THROUGH THE UNCHANGED NOTAMS AND OTHER ADVISORY INFO VERY QUICKLY. AT THIS POINT; I COMMITTED AN ERROR. ON MY INITIAL CALL; I TOLD HER I WAS 5 MI SW OF THE FIELD; WHEN IN FACT; I WAS 5 MI SE OF THE FIELD. SHE TOLD ME TO ENTER A DIAGONAL DOWNWIND OVER MIDFIELD FOR RWY 18. I COULDN'T' UNDERSTAND WHY SHE HAD DONE THAT AND RESPONDED THAT I WAS SET UP FOR A NORMAL L DOWNWIND FOR 18. SHE IMPATIENTLY EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS NO PATTERN W OF THE FIELD (BECAUSE OF DOWNTOWN CHICAGO). AT THAT POINT; I REALIZED WHAT I HAD SAID AND TOLD HER THAT I WAS; IN FACT; SE OF THE FIELD. SHE THEN TOLD ME TO ENTER A L DOWNWIND FOR 18. SIMULTANEOUSLY; SHE CLRED THE SMT Y FOR TKOF; I DON'T RECALL HER MENTIONING ME TO HIM. NONETHELESS; I HEARD HER INSTRUCTIONS TO HIM; AND I WOULD ASSUME HE HEARD HER INSTRUCTIONS TO ME. DESPITE THAT; HE STARTED HIS TKOF ROLL; LIFTED OFF AND MADE A L TURN FOR A NORMAL XWIND CLBOUT. UNFORTUNATELY; THE TIMING WAS SUCH THAT HE AND I WOULD HAVE BOTH PASSED THROUGH THE SE CORNER OF THE PATTERN (WHERE THE XWIND MEETS THE DOWNWIND) AT THE SAME TIME AND ALT. I WATCHED IN DISBELIEF AS HE TOOK OFF; TURNED TOWARDS ME; AND CLBED TO MY ALT. I DON'T KNOW IF HE EVER SAW ME; BUT I DOVE TO THE R AND AVOIDED HIM. I WAS LITTLE SHAKEN UP; BUT NONE OF THE 3 OF US SAID ANYTHING AT THE TIME. THIS IS THE CLOSEST HAVE EVER COME TO A MIDAIR COLLISION; AND I HAVE NO DESIRE TO GET ANY CLOSER. I FEEL THAT THE INCIDENT WAS PRIMARILY THE CTLR'S FAULT; BUT SOME OTHER FACTORS PLAYED SUPPORTING ROLES; AND SOME OF THEM ARE CORRECTABLE. FIRST OF ALL; WHEN AN ATIS RECORDING INCLUDES SOME REPETITIVE INFO ABOUT A NON STANDARD PATTERN; A CLOSED RWY; OR AN OBSTACLE; THAT PORTION OF THE RECORDING SHOULD BE RECORDED ONCE CLRLY; THEN EDITED IN TO EACH UPDATE. IT IS UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT THE CTLR TO REPEAT THE SAME FEW SENTENCES CLRLY EVERY HR FOR MONTHS. SECOND; ALTHOUGH WE ARE ALL AWARE OF THE BURDENSOME WORKLOAD AT SOME ATC FACILITIES; THE OPPOSITE PROB RECEIVES TOO LITTLE ATTN; NAMELY THAT; WHEN TOO LITTLE IS HAPPENING; ATC SVC ALSO DEGRADES NOTICEABLY. THE CTLRS WANDER AWAY FROM THE DESK; COMFORTABLE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF THERE ARE ONLY 2 PLANES IN AN ATA THAT NORMALLY HANDLES 20; THOSE 2 WILL AVOID EACH OTHER. THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE. I DON'T KNOW IF MEIGS TWR HAS RADAR; BUT I DOUBT SHE LOOKED AT IT IF IT DOES; SINCE SHE WOULD HAVE KNOWN I WAS SE AND WOULD HAVE SEEN THE POTENTIAL COLLISION. THIRD; A CLOSE READING OF THE REGS (FAR 91.129) SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT IT IS MY DUTY TO REMAIN OUTSIDE THE ATA UNTIL I HAVE ESTABLISHED 2-WAY CONTACT WITH THE TWR. WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THIS REG; IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO PRACTICE AT ALL; SINCE THE APCH CTLRS USUALLY KEEP YOU UNTIL YOU ARE INTO OR CLOSE TO THE PATTERN. DOES MY 2-WAY CONTACT WITH AN APCH CTLR SUFFICE AS THE CONTACT WITH TWR? IF SO; THE REG NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO MAKE THIS CLR. IF NOT; THEN SHOULD I ADVISE THE APCH CTLR THAT I NEED TO LEAVE HIS FREQ TO CONTACT TWR? THAT MAKES NO SENSE; SINCE ONE PURPOSE OF APCH CTL IS TO SAVE THE TWR'S WORKLOAD. EVEN MORE IMPRACTICAL WOULD BE MY CIRCLING BEYOND THE ATA UNTIL I HAVE ESTABLISHEDCONTACT WITH THE TWR.

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