Narrative:

A beautiful VFR day - the first in awhile. 3 aircraft in the pattern, and a small aircraft Y on a practice ILS approach to the runway. The small aircraft is doing proper radio calls, as am I. He calls a 3 mi final as I am abeam the numbers on downwind and notes he will be doing a low approach only. I turn base about the time he calls a 2 mi final - low approach only. At this point (on base) I make visibility contact with the small aircraft, he is about 2 mi out and a little higher. I turn final for touch and go and the small aircraft pilot gets on the radio and says I cut him off. Other aircraft in the pattern agreed. I do not. He was doing an IFR approach to a busy VFR airport and he was not intending to land. I was lower and I was landing. I have been on the other side of this situation at this airport and you always break off the approach early enough to avoid the traffic pattern. The small aircraft apparently was trying to shoot the approach to minimums, but he did not announce this and this is not normal procedure at the airport under these circumstances (busy VFR pattern). I made the mistake of assuming he was going to break off his approach. He was assuming I was going to extend my downwind to go behind him. If I'd known what he was going to do I would have extended my downwind. My assumptions about his behavior and the fact that I didn't see him caused me to turn base sooner than considerate flying would permit. Far 91.67 makes my actions legal, I believe, but the situation was very unsafe, and the small aircraft had to terminate his approach sooner than he wanted. I think we should have queried the small aircraft about how low he intended to go. I should not have turned base west/O first identing the aircraft. There was never any collision hazard. We saw one another in plenty of time, but my flying was regarded as inconsiderate. I think there needs to be a better common understanding about how practice approachs should be integrated into a VFR traffic pattern. Callback conversation with reporter revealed following information. Reporter stated that upon reflection of the events he felt rather badly about the situation and felt that he did indeed cut out the other aircraft. When the aim was reviewed, the reporter agreed and stated that this was a lesson well learned. Procedures at non tower airports were talked about and expectations of what another aircraft making a practice instrument approach might do on the announcement of making a practice instrument approach. All in all, a good exchange of thoughts and some clarity was reached with reporter.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT IN SMA DESIRING TO MAKE A LNDG AT A NON TWR ARPT CUTS OUT ANOTHER SMA WHO HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE IS ON FINAL PERFORMING A PRACTICE IAP ON THE ILS.

Narrative: A BEAUTIFUL VFR DAY - THE FIRST IN AWHILE. 3 ACFT IN THE PATTERN, AND A SMA Y ON A PRACTICE ILS APCH TO THE RWY. THE SMA IS DOING PROPER RADIO CALLS, AS AM I. HE CALLS A 3 MI FINAL AS I AM ABEAM THE NUMBERS ON DOWNWIND AND NOTES HE WILL BE DOING A LOW APCH ONLY. I TURN BASE ABOUT THE TIME HE CALLS A 2 MI FINAL - LOW APCH ONLY. AT THIS POINT (ON BASE) I MAKE VIS CONTACT WITH THE SMA, HE IS ABOUT 2 MI OUT AND A LITTLE HIGHER. I TURN FINAL FOR TOUCH AND GO AND THE SMA PLT GETS ON THE RADIO AND SAYS I CUT HIM OFF. OTHER ACFT IN THE PATTERN AGREED. I DO NOT. HE WAS DOING AN IFR APCH TO A BUSY VFR ARPT AND HE WAS NOT INTENDING TO LAND. I WAS LOWER AND I WAS LNDG. I HAVE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS SITUATION AT THIS ARPT AND YOU ALWAYS BREAK OFF THE APCH EARLY ENOUGH TO AVOID THE TFC PATTERN. THE SMA APPARENTLY WAS TRYING TO SHOOT THE APCH TO MINIMUMS, BUT HE DID NOT ANNOUNCE THIS AND THIS IS NOT NORMAL PROC AT THE ARPT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES (BUSY VFR PATTERN). I MADE THE MISTAKE OF ASSUMING HE WAS GOING TO BREAK OFF HIS APCH. HE WAS ASSUMING I WAS GOING TO EXTEND MY DOWNWIND TO GO BEHIND HIM. IF I'D KNOWN WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO I WOULD HAVE EXTENDED MY DOWNWIND. MY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR AND THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T SEE HIM CAUSED ME TO TURN BASE SOONER THAN CONSIDERATE FLYING WOULD PERMIT. FAR 91.67 MAKES MY ACTIONS LEGAL, I BELIEVE, BUT THE SITUATION WAS VERY UNSAFE, AND THE SMA HAD TO TERMINATE HIS APCH SOONER THAN HE WANTED. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE QUERIED THE SMA ABOUT HOW LOW HE INTENDED TO GO. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TURNED BASE W/O FIRST IDENTING THE ACFT. THERE WAS NEVER ANY COLLISION HAZARD. WE SAW ONE ANOTHER IN PLENTY OF TIME, BUT MY FLYING WAS REGARDED AS INCONSIDERATE. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A BETTER COMMON UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW PRACTICE APCHS SHOULD BE INTEGRATED INTO A VFR TFC PATTERN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR STATED THAT UPON REFLECTION OF THE EVENTS HE FELT RATHER BADLY ABOUT THE SITUATION AND FELT THAT HE DID INDEED CUT OUT THE OTHER ACFT. WHEN THE AIM WAS REVIEWED, THE RPTR AGREED AND STATED THAT THIS WAS A LESSON WELL LEARNED. PROCS AT NON TWR ARPTS WERE TALKED ABOUT AND EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT ANOTHER ACFT MAKING A PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APCH MIGHT DO ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF MAKING A PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APCH. ALL IN ALL, A GOOD EXCHANGE OF THOUGHTS AND SOME CLARITY WAS REACHED WITH RPTR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.