Small Aircraft
Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 40; Flight Crew Total 324; Flight Crew Type 324
Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
I was flying with a family member to go sight seeing around downtown Pittsburgh when we encountered a hazardous situation with another aircraft. In this report I want to describe exactly what happened; how I think this situation could have been avoided; and what could be done in the future to prevent this from happening again.At about XA:30 local time; I was approaching Pittsburgh from the east in Aircraft X. cruising at about 80mph at 2;100 ft. MSL. My intended course of flight was to fly west over the Monongahela river; make a shallow turn over the north side; then proceed outbound over the Allegheny river. When I was approaching downtown; I saw Aircraft Y about 1.5 miles ahead of me flying on a head on course at my altitude. I rocked my wings a few times and turned to the right. When the Aircraft Y pilot saw me; he turned to the right and proceeded behind me.I then continued along my intended route along the Monongahela river and flew at 2;000 ft.. After passing point park; I turned northbound to continue with my plan. I saw off my 2 o'clock position about 1.5 miles out the same Aircraft Y flying westbound towards my intended route. At this point in time; I could not turn to the right due to the skyscrapers downtown and if I continued going straight or to the left we would be converging. I decided to take evasive action and turn around back over the Monongahela river by performing a steep turn to the left. While I was performing the turn to the left; Aircraft Y changed course and was flying over point park at this time doing another lap around the city. At this time; Aircraft Y was converging on my location by flying a southeast heading while I was flying an easterly heading. To give way; I flew as far south as I could with out causing any obstacle hazards; but Aircraft Y continued towards my location. Due to Mt. Washington (a large hill with more skyscrapers on top) was to the south; I could not turn to the right. I also could not turn to the left due to the traffic. I decided to add full power and pitch for Vy to slow down; as well as regain the altitude I loss during my steep turn. Aircraft Y; traveling at a faster speed; turned right directly in front of me and proceeded to AGC to the south.For this flight; I calculated ground elevation to be at 765 ft. using the Pittsburgh TAC (1613-848=765). I decided 2;000 ft. would be a good buffer for obstacle clearance and Class B Airspace clearance. During the steep turn I descended to 1;800 ft. due to lack of concentration caused by the traffic I was avoiding. During this flight; I was flying an aircraft that was not originally manufactured with an electrical system and was complying with Part 91.225(e) and 91.215(b)(3).Reflecting on this incident; I believe this could have been easily avoided if the Aircraft Y pilot would have been scanning for traffic and noticed me. In both encounters; I began making evasive maneuvers over a mile in advance while the other pilot continued turning towards me. If an emphasis on see-and-avoid would have been done in this busy airspace; this problem would have been mitigated.Going forward; I believe that there could be some regulatory measures to improve safety in this particular environment. From my experience flying sightseeing flights over Niagara Falls and the Hudson River; I believe that providing a CTAF frequency for VFR aircraft to communicate with makes flying in dense traffic much safer and organized. My suggestion in the future would be to add a note on the Pittsburgh TAC chart with a CTAF frequency; insert a note requiring pilots to contact AGC Tower or PIT Approach; or add a Part 93 regulation standardizing the direction of traffic flow around the golden triangle area. With Class B boundaries above and to the west of the city; large buildings in the city itself; a mountain with large towers to the south; large radio towers to the north; as well as multiple hospital helicopter pads in the city; I believe this is a very complex airspace that could afford to have special procedures to be complied with in this airspace. In conclusion; this occurrence was a result of lack of visual scanning procedures. With this airspace being particularly complex as well as congested due to medical flights and sightseeing flights; I believe all pilots should exercise extremes caution in this area.
Pilot reported NMAC during sightseeing flight.