It’s a jungle out there
The traffic pattern is a busy place
The threat of a midair collision strikes fear in the hearts of many pilots, which is understandable when you consider the consequences.
Thankfully, they are relatively rare, occurring only a few times a year. Digging into the data from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System shows that close calls are disturbingly common, however.
NASA’s ASRS program is a voluntary reporting system that encourages pilots and other aviation professionals to submit information that could improve aviation safety. By doing so, the pilot is immune from certificate actions, assuming she meets certain conditions. NASA then analyzes the reports for trends or to identify areas of improvement. Earlier this year the agency created a summary of recent flight training reports, a shocking number of which involved close calls with other aircraft.
Because the reports are voluntary and self-selecting, and because the NASA summary is a selection of the reports, we can’t glean any data from the information, such as how often midair collision hazards occur, or how likely we are to experience one and where. But we can get a sense of what’s happening in the flight training world on a day-to-day basis, and what concerns instructors and students. In short: The traffic pattern can be a crazy place.
“C172 pilot reported an NMAC [near-midair collision] after an aircraft turned the wrong way during a go-around.”
“GA pilot reported an NMAC with another aircraft that had turned to a wrong heading.”
“GA student pilot reported an NMAC with a helicopter in the traffic pattern at a non-towered airport while on takeoff.”
“A flight instructor reported an NMAC even during initial climb with opposite direction landing aircraft.”
It seems safe to say that for the fewer than 20 midair collisions a year, there are dozens, and possibly hundreds more close calls that most of us never hear about.These are just a few of the summaries from the report. In the report’s 50 selected narratives, 17 dealt with near midair collisions. It shows that, if nothing else, the staff who analyze the reports believed it a big enough issue to include so many incidents. Despite the earlier caveats, it also seems safe to say that for the fewer than 20 midair collisions a year, there are dozens, and possibly hundreds more close calls that most of us never hear about.
Most experts agree that the biggest risk of a collision is near the airport. The reasons are obvious. It’s where we all congregate. It’s also a time of high workload and many distractions. One would think an air traffic control tower would help solve the issue, but that’s not the case. There have been two high-profile midair collisions in the second half of this year, and one was at a busy airport with a control tower.
There’s also no clear trend in terms of types of aircraft or operation. Sometimes the mix of instrument and visual traffic can cause a problem, as the instrument traffic tries to land straight in from an approach while the visual traffic is in the pattern. But sometimes it’s a beautiful day and two airplanes already in the pattern come together. It can be two airplanes, an airplane and a helicopter, or even two gliders. The point is that whatever you fly and wherever you fly it, there is a risk of a midair collision.
If the NASA reports and recent accidents are any indication, the risk is usually highest when someone has made a mistake. An airplane turns the wrong way or does something else unexpected, or a pilot makes the wrong radio calls, and the pilot of the other airplane trusts the radio more than his eyes. Some accidents have come after the pilot lines up for the wrong runway or identifies the wrong traffic.
Tools like ADS-B traffic can help, but our best resource is still our eyes. And to best use them, fly defensively around the pattern. Motorcycle riders know this well. They expect cars to miss stop signs and back out of driveways without looking. Pilots should do the same in the pattern. Expect someone to cut you off on downwind, anticipate landing traffic from the other direction, and assume that another pilot’s radio calls are wrong until you can visually verify their true location.
Trust only what you can see and be skeptical of what you can’t. It’s the only way to ensure you end up as the writer of a NASA report and not the subject of one from the NTSB.
