NMAC BTWN ACR X AND UGA Y RESULTING FROM THE FLC INITIATED GAR BY ACR X BECAUSE OF AN ACFT ON THE RWY.

Date: 1994-08 · Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer

Anomalies: conflict-nmac|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy

Synopsis

NMAC BTWN ACR X AND UGA Y RESULTING FROM THE FLC INITIATED GAR BY ACR X BECAUSE OF AN ACFT ON THE RWY.

Narrative

WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 8L AND WERE FLYING THE APCH WITH ILS BACKUP. AS WE APCHED 1000 FT AGL WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT AN ACFT ON THE RWY THAT HAD NOT STARTED ITS TKOF ROLL. WE CONTINUED OUR APCH WITH THE OTHER ACFT STILL IN POS ON THE RWY. AT APPROX 300-400 FT AGL WE FELT IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE OTHER ACFT TO BE OFF THE RWY BEFORE OUR TOUCHDOWN AND ELECTED TO GAR. I INFORMED THE TWR WE WERE GOING AROUND. THE TWR CANCELED THE TKOF CLRNC FOR THE ACFT ON THE RWY. I AGAIN INFORMED THE TWR WE WERE GOING AROUND AND ASKED FOR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS (HDG/ALT). I HAD ASKED FOR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS IN CASE THERE WAS POSSIBLE TFC CONFLICT. AFTER MY SECOND REQUEST; THE TWR SAID FLY RWY HDG; CLB TO 3000 FT. AS WE WERE CLBING THROUGH APPROX 1000 FT WE NOTICED A LIGHT ACFT (SINGLE ENG; PROBABLY CESSNA) XING L TO R AT OUR ALT. SHORTLY AFTER THIS WE WERE GIVEN A VECTOR TO TURN S AND CONTACT DEP CTL. AFTER BEING VECTORED FOR ANOTHER APCH AND GIVEN A SECOND LNDG CLRNC; I ASKED THE TWR IF THEY WERE AWARE OF THE OTHER ACFT. THE RESPONSE WAS 'YES; WE KNEW ABOUT THE OTHER ACFT.' NO OTHER INFO WAS GIVEN. I AM SHOCKED THE TWR WOULD GIVE US INSTRUCTIONS THAT PUT US IN CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER ACFT THEY KNEW ABOUT AND NOT ADVISE US OF THE OTHER ACFT. OTHER POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) IF WE HAD FLOWN THE ILS MISSED APCH PROC; WE ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE HAD A COLLISION WITH THE OTHER ACFT. ANY GAR FROM RWY 8L WOULD CAUSE TFC CONFLICT. 2) A DANGEROUS SIT IS CREATED WHEN ACFT ARE FLYING A L DOWNWIND TO RWY 4L WHILE ACFT ARE LNDG ON RWY 8L. ANY ACFT ON A GAR FROM RWY 8L WILL BE IN CONFLICT WITH ACFT IN THE TFC PATTERN FOR RWY 4L. DURING BUSY PERIODS; WITH ACFT LNDG ON RWY 8L EVERY 1.5 - 2 MINS; ACFT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE PATTERN FOR RWY 4L. 3) IF THE LIGHT ACFT HAD TCASII; THE POTENTIAL FOR A COLLISION WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATLY REDUCED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 281117: THIS WAS A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SIT BUT APPARENTLY THE TWR OPERATOR DIDN'T CARE. IF WE HAD FLOWN THE INST APCH MISSED APCH; IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD HAVE HIT THE LIGHT ACFT. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS THAT A SIMILAR SIT OCCURRED ON THE SAME RWY.

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