TFC CONFLICT BTWN SMA PRACTICING NIGHT LNDGS AT PWT AND HELICOPTER ON ILS APCH FOR RWY 19.

Date: 1996-12 · Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer

Anomalies: conflict-nmac|conflict-ground-conflict|critical|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-other-unknown|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far

Synopsis

TFC CONFLICT BTWN SMA PRACTICING NIGHT LNDGS AT PWT AND HELICOPTER ON ILS APCH FOR RWY 19.

Narrative

CONDITIONS WERE TOTAL DARKNESS; VMC; WIND DIRECTION (AWOS) 040 DEGS; RWY 1 IN USE. I WAS PRACTICING NIGHT LNDGS WITH FULL STOP; TAXI BACK FOR TKOF; AND A CLOSED PATTERN. 2 OTHER VFR ACFT WERE IN THE PATTERN; ALL USING RWY 1 AND ANNOUNCING POS AND INTENTIONS ON THE CTAF. I HAD JUST CHKED THE PATTERN FOR TFC AND WAS READY TO TAKE THE RWY FOR TKOF WHEN I RECEIVED ON THE CTAF; 'MIL HELI XXXX; 4 MI OUT ON THE ILS.' SINCE I AM NOT INST RATED AND NOT INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH IFR PROCS AT PWT; I DID NOT IMMEDIATELY RECALL THAT THE ILS AT PWT SERVES ONLY RWY 19. I THEREFORE ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED THAT THE TFC WAS ON APCH FOR RWY 1 AND; IN FACT; EXPEDITED MY TAKING THE RWY TO MAXIMIZE SPACING. JUST AS I BEGAN ROLLING THE HELI ANNOUNCED '...ON FINAL FOR RWY 19;' AND AT THE SAME TIME I IDENTED HIS LIGHT AGAINST A BACKGND OF SEVERAL GND AND AIRBORNE LIGHTS. I IMMEDIATELY CUT PWR AND TAXIED CLR OF THE RWY ONTO THE GRASS. (THERE WAS NO TXWY NEAR MY LOCATION.) I CALLED 'MIL HELI; ARE YOU FOR LOW APCH;' BUT RECEIVED NO REPLY. THE HELI CONTINUED HIS APCH AND EITHER LANDED OR HOVERED NEAR THE APCH END OF RWY 19. I CALLED 'MIL HELI; ARE YOU TURNING OFF' BUT AGAIN RECEIVED NO REPLY. THE HELI THEN PROCEEDED TO TAKE OFF; AND PASSING OVER MY POS; ANNOUNCED 'MIL HELI XXX; AIRBORNE; DEPARTING STRAIGHT OUT.' I WAS LEFT WONDERING IF THE HELI WAS NOT MONITORING THE VHF CTAF; POSSIBLY LISTENING ONLY ON UHF OR ONLY TO APCH CTL. CERTAINLY I WAS AT FAULT FOR VIOLATING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF A LNDG ACFT; BUT HOW FAR DOES MY RESPONSIBILITY AS A VFR-ONLY PLT EXTEND FOR FAMILIARITY WITH IFR PROCS; PARTICULARLY AT AN UNFAMILIAR NON TWR ARPT IN VMC? ALSO I FEEL THAT CONSIDERABLE FAULT LIES WITH THE MIL PLT FOR FLYING AN APCH AT CONFLICT WITH ESTABLISHED FLOW WITHOUT AT LEAST CLRLY STATING HIS INTENTIONS. NOTE THAT ON HIS INITIAL CTAF CALL HE NEITHER STATED HIS DIRECTION FROM THE FIELD; HIS INTENDED RWY; NOR HIS INTENTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE APCH. INCIDENTS SUCH AS THIS EMPHASIZE THE NEED FOR COMPLETE COM AND EXTRA ALERTNESS IN SITS OF MIXED IFR AND VFR TFC.

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