Narrative:

After crossing I-81, I tuned to CTAF (122.8) at N00 and noted that an small transport was shooting a VOR-DME approach to runway 33, and an small aircraft was performing touch-and-goes at runway 33. I then reported my position, 'small aircraft Y is 10 mi east, landing oswego co. On a heading of 300 degree', I was 2 mi southeast of the airport searching for the small aircraft, but had the small transport in sight on the ground. Thinking that the small aircraft had probably extended his downwind quite a distance northeast of the airport, I turned to 330 degree, reported 'small aircraft Y entering a 1 mi left base for runway 24, oswego co; the small transport is in sight and I'll slow to allow your departure.' the small transport acknowledged my radio call, and I began looking to my right for the small aircraft (that supposedly had not turned base, but extended his downwind leg). As the small transport began his takeoff roll, I reported 'small aircraft Y turning final for runway 24 oswego co.' while I was 500' AGL on final, the small aircraft reported 'turning base to final.' I looked upward to my left and saw the small aircraft make a wide circling left turn, angling toward the approach end of runway 24. At 300' AGL, I quickly keyed the microphone and asked 'small aircraft, do you see small aircraft Y on short final?' the small aircraft responded 'yea, we see you, we're in formation, what are you going to do? You didn't fly a standard pattern (angrily).' my response, 'I'm on short final, but am much faster so you can still land, I'll exit runway quickly.' as I began my landing flare, the small aircraft angrily reported 'doing a 360 in the final.' I made an uneventful landing, rapidly cleared the runway via the taxiway, and proceeded to the FBO for fuel. I observed the small aircraft T/D about midfield on runway 24, then taxi off the southwest end and return to the flight school ramp. While my plane was being re-fueled, 2 men exited the small aircraft that had just landed and proceeded toward my aircraft. One of the men inquired if I was the pilot of my plane, and I responded affirmatively. The man proceeded to tell me that he was an instructor and wanted to know if I was concerned about the potentially dangerous situation that occurred. I agreed that it was of concern and indicated my willingness to talk about it. Then he quite angrilyinformed me that I had not followed regulations set forth in the aim by not entering the pattern on a 45 degree angle to downwind. Upon returning home, I a gave considerable thought to what had happened and also reread the aim and FARS. While I was correct about the aim referring to FAA recommendations not 'regulations' as suggested by the angry flight instrument, that is a small point. This potential conflict of aircraft was due to a 'convergence of several small factors.' first, the NOTAM concerning the closing of runway 33 was not published in such a manner to adequately notify arriving aircraft. Even the flight instrument was not aware of the NOTAM at his own field. This brought into conflict a high performance twin, a relatively high performance single (my plane), and a training aircraft with an unseasoned pilot at the controls. Second, the instrument may have been concentrating on his student and not listening adequately to his radio. I don't recall him acknowledging any radio calls by the small transport, and I doubt he heard my several position reports. He did, however, respond to the unicom operator. But they were obviously quite close. Thirdly, the most important point, the instrument/student combo failed to make accurate position reports which are critical for safe operations at a nonctled field. The flown by these gentlemen clearly was not on an extended downwind (as reported) when they came into conflict with my final approach path. It's purely supposition on my part, but I think they were confused by the change of runways. When the student reported 'turning base runway 24' he may have been turning base to runway 33 (which actually would be downwind runway 24). The instrument did announce 'correction, we're still on downwind,' but it's not clear that they actually turned. It's possible that the instrument had his student continue downwind for runway 33, rather than turn downwind for runway 24, taking them southeast of the airport. In any event, based on their reports I was expecting to find their aircraft in the pattern on downwind or slightly northeast of the field. Given the time it took for my base leg andturn to final and where they appeared in view, the small aircraft was clearly south to southeast of the field all the while. Obviously, not on a 'base' to 'extended downwind'. Fourth, the instrument who was so insistent about the 'regulations' on traffic patterns set forth in the aim was, in fact, in violation of far 91.113 regarding right-of-way at uncontrolled fields by coming into conflict with my aircraft which at the time was on final approach and at a lower altitude. Finally, as I've done in the past, I'll continue to enter the traffic pattern on a 45 degree to downwind as recommended in the aim, except when a potential conflict (as described above) requires that good judgement and see-and-avoid tactics require otherwise.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA Y HAD CONFLICT WITH TRAINING SMA ON FINAL APCH TO RWY 33 AR OSWEGO ARPT, NY.

Narrative: AFTER XING I-81, I TUNED TO CTAF (122.8) AT N00 AND NOTED THAT AN SMT WAS SHOOTING A VOR-DME APCH TO RWY 33, AND AN SMA WAS PERFORMING TOUCH-AND-GOES AT RWY 33. I THEN RPTED MY POS, 'SMA Y IS 10 MI E, LNDG OSWEGO CO. ON A HDG OF 300 DEG', I WAS 2 MI SE OF THE ARPT SEARCHING FOR THE SMA, BUT HAD THE SMT IN SIGHT ON THE GND. THINKING THAT THE SMA HAD PROBABLY EXTENDED HIS DOWNWIND QUITE A DISTANCE NE OF THE ARPT, I TURNED TO 330 DEG, RPTED 'SMA Y ENTERING A 1 MI L BASE FOR RWY 24, OSWEGO CO; THE SMT IS IN SIGHT AND I'LL SLOW TO ALLOW YOUR DEP.' THE SMT ACKNOWLEDGED MY RADIO CALL, AND I BEGAN LOOKING TO MY R FOR THE SMA (THAT SUPPOSEDLY HAD NOT TURNED BASE, BUT EXTENDED HIS DOWNWIND LEG). AS THE SMT BEGAN HIS TKOF ROLL, I RPTED 'SMA Y TURNING FINAL FOR RWY 24 OSWEGO CO.' WHILE I WAS 500' AGL ON FINAL, THE SMA RPTED 'TURNING BASE TO FINAL.' I LOOKED UPWARD TO MY L AND SAW THE SMA MAKE A WIDE CIRCLING L TURN, ANGLING TOWARD THE APCH END OF RWY 24. AT 300' AGL, I QUICKLY KEYED THE MIKE AND ASKED 'SMA, DO YOU SEE SMA Y ON SHORT FINAL?' THE SMA RESPONDED 'YEA, WE SEE YOU, WE'RE IN FORMATION, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? YOU DIDN'T FLY A STANDARD PATTERN (ANGRILY).' MY RESPONSE, 'I'M ON SHORT FINAL, BUT AM MUCH FASTER SO YOU CAN STILL LAND, I'LL EXIT RWY QUICKLY.' AS I BEGAN MY LNDG FLARE, THE SMA ANGRILY RPTED 'DOING A 360 IN THE FINAL.' I MADE AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG, RAPIDLY CLRED THE RWY VIA THE TXWY, AND PROCEEDED TO THE FBO FOR FUEL. I OBSERVED THE SMA T/D ABOUT MIDFIELD ON RWY 24, THEN TAXI OFF THE SW END AND RETURN TO THE FLT SCHOOL RAMP. WHILE MY PLANE WAS BEING RE-FUELED, 2 MEN EXITED THE SMA THAT HAD JUST LANDED AND PROCEEDED TOWARD MY ACFT. ONE OF THE MEN INQUIRED IF I WAS THE PLT OF MY PLANE, AND I RESPONDED AFFIRMATIVELY. THE MAN PROCEEDED TO TELL ME THAT HE WAS AN INSTRUCTOR AND WANTED TO KNOW IF I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION THAT OCCURRED. I AGREED THAT IT WAS OF CONCERN AND INDICATED MY WILLINGNESS TO TALK ABOUT IT. THEN HE QUITE ANGRILYINFORMED ME THAT I HAD NOT FOLLOWED REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN THE AIM BY NOT ENTERING THE PATTERN ON A 45 DEG ANGLE TO DOWNWIND. UPON RETURNING HOME, I A GAVE CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND ALSO REREAD THE AIM AND FARS. WHILE I WAS CORRECT ABOUT THE AIM REFERRING TO FAA RECOMMENDATIONS NOT 'REGS' AS SUGGESTED BY THE ANGRY FLT INSTR, THAT IS A SMALL POINT. THIS POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF ACFT WAS DUE TO A 'CONVERGENCE OF SEVERAL SMALL FACTORS.' FIRST, THE NOTAM CONCERNING THE CLOSING OF RWY 33 WAS NOT PUBLISHED IN SUCH A MANNER TO ADEQUATELY NOTIFY ARRIVING ACFT. EVEN THE FLT INSTR WAS NOT AWARE OF THE NOTAM AT HIS OWN FIELD. THIS BROUGHT INTO CONFLICT A HIGH PERFORMANCE TWIN, A RELATIVELY HIGH PERFORMANCE SINGLE (MY PLANE), AND A TRNING ACFT WITH AN UNSEASONED PLT AT THE CTLS. SECOND, THE INSTR MAY HAVE BEEN CONCENTRATING ON HIS STUDENT AND NOT LISTENING ADEQUATELY TO HIS RADIO. I DON'T RECALL HIM ACKNOWLEDGING ANY RADIO CALLS BY THE SMT, AND I DOUBT HE HEARD MY SEVERAL POS RPTS. HE DID, HOWEVER, RESPOND TO THE UNICOM OPERATOR. BUT THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY QUITE CLOSE. THIRDLY, THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT, THE INSTR/STUDENT COMBO FAILED TO MAKE ACCURATE POS RPTS WHICH ARE CRITICAL FOR SAFE OPS AT A NONCTLED FIELD. THE FLOWN BY THESE GENTLEMEN CLRLY WAS NOT ON AN EXTENDED DOWNWIND (AS RPTED) WHEN THEY CAME INTO CONFLICT WITH MY FINAL APCH PATH. IT'S PURELY SUPPOSITION ON MY PART, BUT I THINK THEY WERE CONFUSED BY THE CHANGE OF RWYS. WHEN THE STUDENT RPTED 'TURNING BASE RWY 24' HE MAY HAVE BEEN TURNING BASE TO RWY 33 (WHICH ACTUALLY WOULD BE DOWNWIND RWY 24). THE INSTR DID ANNOUNCE 'CORRECTION, WE'RE STILL ON DOWNWIND,' BUT IT'S NOT CLR THAT THEY ACTUALLY TURNED. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE INSTR HAD HIS STUDENT CONTINUE DOWNWIND FOR RWY 33, RATHER THAN TURN DOWNWIND FOR RWY 24, TAKING THEM SE OF THE ARPT. IN ANY EVENT, BASED ON THEIR RPTS I WAS EXPECTING TO FIND THEIR ACFT IN THE PATTERN ON DOWNWIND OR SLIGHTLY NE OF THE FIELD. GIVEN THE TIME IT TOOK FOR MY BASE LEG ANDTURN TO FINAL AND WHERE THEY APPEARED IN VIEW, THE SMA WAS CLRLY S TO SE OF THE FIELD ALL THE WHILE. OBVIOUSLY, NOT ON A 'BASE' TO 'EXTENDED DOWNWIND'. FOURTH, THE INSTR WHO WAS SO INSISTENT ABOUT THE 'REGS' ON TFC PATTERNS SET FORTH IN THE AIM WAS, IN FACT, IN VIOLATION OF FAR 91.113 REGARDING RIGHT-OF-WAY AT UNCTLED FIELDS BY COMING INTO CONFLICT WITH MY ACFT WHICH AT THE TIME WAS ON FINAL APCH AND AT A LOWER ALT. FINALLY, AS I'VE DONE IN THE PAST, I'LL CONTINUE TO ENTER THE TFC PATTERN ON A 45 DEG TO DOWNWIND AS RECOMMENDED IN THE AIM, EXCEPT WHEN A POTENTIAL CONFLICT (AS DESCRIBED ABOVE) REQUIRES THAT GOOD JUDGEMENT AND SEE-AND-AVOID TACTICS REQUIRE OTHERWISE.

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.