Cessna 172 cuts off Lear 60 at YQA Muskoka . . on purpose .

[robbreid]

ADORS Number: 2008O1659
Reporting Region: Ontario
Occurrence Information
Occurrence Type: Incident
Occurrence Date: 2008/08/03
Occurrence Time: 0000 Z
Day Or Night: day-time
Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0
Canadian Aerodrome ID: CYQA Aerodrome Name: Muskoka Occurrence Location: Muskoka (CYQA)
Event Information Conflict - potential Other operational incident Overshoot/missed approach Pilot/public complaint

Make: CESSNA Model: 172F
Year Built: 1964
Owner: SIERRA FOX INC

Make: CESSNA Model: T182T
Owner: THE S. E. JOHNSTON MACHINERY SALES CO. LIMITED


Country of Registration: UNITED STATES
Make: LEARJET Model: 60

User Name: Satens, Terrence
Date: 2008/08/05
Further Action Required: No

Narrative: Between 1901 and 1947, Cessna 172F aircraft started and continued to conduct circuits to runway 18 Muskoka Airport (CYQA). At approximately 1910 a Cessna T182T aircraft joined the circuit also for continuous circuits. YYZ ACC advised Timmins of a LearJet 60 landing YQA at 1926. The Learjet 60 first called Timmins at 10 south of the Muskoka airport. Circuit traffic was passed as well as the active runway being 18. Learjet elected to use runway 36 as this was the last ATC clearance given, RNAV 36. Learjet 60 next reported IGSIM, 5 miles final and just prior to that report, FSS had obtained position reports from the two circuit traffic aircraft that both indicated they were downwind and DF bearings confirmed this and actually confirmed they were both south of the DF site downwind. It was at this point with Learjet 60 just inside 5 miles final and not even a minute after the position report from circuit traffic, Cessna 172F advised "short final runway 18". FSS immediately provided updates to get the traffic to change their course of action. Neither aircraft wanted to give up on landing into one another and only after FSS stated "somebody is going to have to give way" did the Cessna 172F elect to overshoot runway 18 and rejoin the circuit. LearJet 60 landed, backtracked and cleared the runway with no further incident, Cessna 172F continued to conduct circuits for another 20 minutes without further incident and Cessna T182T left the circuit for his destination. Approximately 2 hours later the pilot of the Cessna T182T aircraft phoned YTS FSS with his name and phone number advising that the Cessna 172F had intentionally cut his circuit short to get in the way of the landing aircraft and refused to give way to make a point. FSS had suspected based on position report information and the sudden report on final that this was the case, but due to the fact FSS are not on site at Muskoka visual confirmation was unavailable. Pilot of Cessna T182T says he will make whatever statements or reports to pursue this matter as Cessna 172F did have a student on board when this incident occurred.

[x-wind]

Sounds like a serious head case to me. Or if it was just a student, perhaps he thought he should be quicker and try and get a t & g out the way.

I think I've experienced this before. It just never amounted to anything.. Some people have little plane syndrome or no manners. I know I know, inbound traffic shall conform with the already present circuit traffic. But airmen ship, in my mind, dictates you let the Lear in before you do your 10th touch and go.

[grimey]

But airmen ship, in my mind, dictates you let the Lear in before you do your 10th touch and go.

I can only recall one instance of someone doing training intentionally conflicting with other traffic. In all other cases that I've seen as an FSS over the last 4 years, guys in circuits or doing simulated approaches have been very good about accommodating itinerant traffic. Maybe I just got lucky and worked somewhere with nice pilots, though.

[Tim]

The stunt in the cessna was really stupid, but then again coming in to the tailwind side of the runway against circuit traffic isn't exactly the best airmanship display either. There was an article a few safety letters ago which had a similar situation (training a/c appching ifr against cct traffic) but with a mid-air collision killing several people. I think by the sounds of things both pilots showed some bad airmanship here, although if the guy in the cessna went looking for a direct conflict then it doesn't matter if he had right of way or not, that's just stupid.

[Changes in Latitudes]

I am going to propose it was a student's brain fart with no intended malice. No person, no sane person, would ever want to put their aircraft in any sort of jeopardy with another object in the air, be it bird, Lear 60 or 747. I am guessing he got a little uncomfortable with extending past his comfort zone, and decided to dive in to get out of the way. If that's the case, he needs a few more hours with a competent instructor before hitting the air solo again.

If this person did, however dive into the runway just to make the Lear 60 miss, then he should have his license pulled and be declared medically stupid.

[silentivan]

And another case to prove that common sense isn't so common.

Aviation physics: Lear (Mass + Speed = Inertia) > C172 (Inertia)

Therefore, no body wins.

And yes, I know my physics formula is flawed. I never said I passed it in high school

[hydro]

I am going to propose it was a student's brain fart with no intended malice.

When I saw the thread title, I immediately had an idea that a specific aircraft involved. After reading who the aircraft owner is I was right. Based on previous history, I would believe that it occurred just as it was mentioned in the Cadors.

[Four1oh]

Sounds like my buddy, Blastor.

[Just Duckie]

I always thought the Lear would have to conform to the established VFR circuit.


9.12 Reporting Procedures for IFR Aircraft when Approaching or Landing at an Uncontrolled Aerodrome (CAR 602.104) (see RAC 4.5.4 and 4.5.5)
The pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft who intends to conduct an approach to or a landing at an uncontrolled aerodrome, whether or not the aerodrome lies within an MF area, shall report:

(a) the pilot-in-command’s intentions regarding the operation of the aircraft

(i) five minutes before the estimated time of commencing the approach procedure, stating the estimated landing time,

(ii) when commencing a circling manœuvre, and

(iii) as soon as practicable after initiating a missed approach procedure; and

(b) the aircraft’s position

(i) when passing the fix outbound, when the pilot-in-command intends to conduct a procedure turn, or, if no procedure turn is intended, when the aircraft first intercepts the final approach course,

(ii) when passing the final approach fix or three minutes before the estimated landing time where no final approach fix exists, and

(iii) on final approach.

I[b]n addition to these requirements, pilots operating aircraft under IFR into an uncontrolled aerodrome, when the weather conditions at the aerodrome could permit VFR circuit operations, are expected to approach and land on the active runway that may be established by the aircraft operating in the VFR circuit.[/b] Pilots operating aircraft under IFR at an uncontrolled aerodrome do not establish any priority over aircraft operating under VFR at that aerodrome. Should it be necessary for the IFR aircraft to approach to and/or land on a runway contrary to the established VFR operation, it is expected that appropriate communications between pilots, or pilots and the air-to-ground facility, will be effected in order to ensure there is no conflict of traffic.

[Liquid Charlie]

I always thought the Lear would have to conform to the established VFR circuit.

I'm sure that was the mindset of the Cessna driver and look at the result. Seems to me the MF calls were made -- in any event the Lear did not magically appear -- nope looks like "air rage" to me -- inflexible -- pig headed thinking like that does not belong anywhere -- let alone in an airplane -- he just went from "maybe being right" to a total asshole in the blink of an eye.

[KAG]

or its easier (and safer) to extend the downwind and let the Lear go in and land.

[Just Duckie]

Perhaps it was bad airmanship on some ones part, or maybe the Lear thought that because they were IFR, faster and bigger that they should have the right of way. Either way, it still doesn't stop them from the requirement of conforming to the established circuit and those airplanes already in it.

As per the regs:

( addition to these requirements, pilots operating aircraft under IFR into an uncontrolled aerodrome, when the weather conditions at the aerodrome could permit VFR circuit operations, are expected to approach and land on the active runway that may be established by the aircraft operating in the VFR circuit.)

[CD]

Hey Duckie, you're quoting guidance from the AIM, not the actual regulation...

[Wilbur]

I am not for a moment condoning what the guy in the Cessna did. But, why do so many pilots flying commerically into uncontrolled airports believe everyone else should clear the way for them to land straight in against the established circuit?

[patter]

And this is exactly why I hate CADORS. He said, she said. You have no idea how much truth is in it. Maybe the F model was doing a 180 approach. Why was FSS giving an instruction. Why was the Lear not conforming. What is the agenda of the C182? Comments like that in a CADOR can impact a career.

[lilfssister]

How the heck is

FSS stated "somebody is going to have to give way"

an instruction??

It's a statement.

It's advising that there is a collision imminent.

It's being "proactive".

[Just Duckie]

Does it matter where the rules are printed, they are still the rules.

I suspect that the driver of the Lear had no idea about the rules in Canada, as it was an "N" numbered air plane and they seem to have the right of way in the USA when transitioning to land. I've witnessed common sense and good airmanship disappear from IFR traffic on a so called straight in final (when they were actually 6-8 miles out and on a slant final) during VFR conditions. Fire trucks shouldn't have to wait for any one, but sometimes common sense has dictated that we did.

The cessna was in in the right as far as the rules go, not the Lear.

[Cat Driver]

Approximately 2 hours later the pilot of the Cessna T182T aircraft phoned YTS FSS with his name and phone number advising that the Cessna 172F had intentionally cut his circuit short to get in the way of the landing aircraft and refused to give way to make a point. FSS had suspected based on position report information and the sudden report on final that this was the case, but due to the fact FSS are not on site at Muskoka visual confirmation was unavailable. Pilot of Cessna T182T says he will make whatever statements or reports to pursue this matter as Cessna 172F did have a student on board when this incident occurred.

If this is in fact what happened then it changes the whole picture.

The Lear had broadcast his position and intentions and the two light aircraft were down wind the Lear would have flown the five miles last reported in less than two minutes........

.........common sense and common courtesy would dictate the two light aircraft could have extended their down wind to allow the Lear to land with no conflict....which would have been in compliance with the rules.

The FSS operator was doing his/her job trying to resolve a conflict.

It should be interesting to see how this is investigated and find out just what did in fact happen.

[patter]

Common sense would have had FSS gently remind the Lear of circuit joining in Canada.
The Cessna further complied with CARS. When there was a collision eminent, even though he had right of way, he gave way.
There's more going on though. There is a second hearsay CADOR in the system, with the same plane. From the CADOR again the Cessna is not breaking a rule, and the CADOR is based on a public opinion.
I think that the comings and goings of that airport need observation by a subject matter expert.

[C23flyer]

Sounds like this one...

Donaldson, John
Date: 2006/08/08
Further Action Required: Yes
O.P.I.: Aviation Enforcement
Narrative: *** NOTE ***: please refer to CADOR 2006O1500 for a related incident involving the same Cessna C-172F aircraft about 15 minutes earlier. The Sierra Fox Inc. Cessna C-172F aircraft (C-FRVX) was on a local VFR flight from the Muskoka Airport (CYQA). The Tradewinds Aviation Inc. (operating as Goodspeed Aviation) Pilatus PC-12/45 aircraft (operating as GDP523) was on an IFR flight from Waterbury-Oxford Airport, CN (U.S.A.) (KOXC) to Muskoka Airport (CYQA). The C-172F pilot made the first call two (2) miles east of runway and advised "with traffic and the numbers." It appeared that the pilot was not aware of a Pilatus PC-12/45 that had cancelled IFR and joined right base for runway 18 and was mid-downwind. The C-172F appeared to try to land ahead of the PC-12/45 and, when advised that the PC-12/45 was faster and appeared to be closer, a verbal exchange took place between the pilots. The PC-12/45 landed ahead of the C-172F without further issue. Ops. impact -- unknown.

User Name: Donaldson, John
Date: 2007/04/16
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.:
Narrative: UPDATE Follow-up information received from Aviation Enforcement [2007/04/13]: Aviation Enforcement staff have reviewed this occurrence.

Same aircraft I believe.