Narrative:

We entered the pattern on a 2 mi left 45 degree entry at the pattern altitude of 1200 ft. A cessna 182 (or similar) was planning on entering the pattern on a 1/2 mi 45 degree at 1200 ft MSL also. The other aircraft was flying parallel and opposite to downwind traffic and 1 mi outside of downwind traffic (see diagram). The other aircraft and us were on a collision course. The 2 aircraft had an approximately closure rate of 120-140 mph. I saw the other aircraft at 200 ft distance and took evasive action by pushing the control yoke fully forward. The other aircraft did not take any evasive action. No injuries occurred due to the negative G's and we landed without further incident. The other aircraft was red and white, but I did not continue to track the aircraft to determine the registration number. Contributing factors include our aircraft being hidden by the sun's reflection off the ocean. Additionally, the airport was currently using runway 26. This runway is not normally used and so the entry points and standards of the traffic pattern are not uniform for the local traffic. Ie, normally, this airport uses the 'river and highway 1' as a chkpoint to enter on a 45 degree entry, but runway 26 hasn't any standard chkpoints. Human factors include my difficultty communicating with the student. I neglected to look out the glare screen for 15-20 seconds in the direction from which the other aircraft approached. Additionally, the other pilot/crew may have had factors that caused them to enter on such a short 45 degree entry.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR WITH SPI HAS NMAC WHEN ENTERING TFC PATTERN.

Narrative: WE ENTERED THE PATTERN ON A 2 MI L 45 DEG ENTRY AT THE PATTERN ALT OF 1200 FT. A CESSNA 182 (OR SIMILAR) WAS PLANNING ON ENTERING THE PATTERN ON A 1/2 MI 45 DEG AT 1200 FT MSL ALSO. THE OTHER ACFT WAS FLYING PARALLEL AND OPPOSITE TO DOWNWIND TFC AND 1 MI OUTSIDE OF DOWNWIND TFC (SEE DIAGRAM). THE OTHER ACFT AND US WERE ON A COLLISION COURSE. THE 2 ACFT HAD AN APPROX CLOSURE RATE OF 120-140 MPH. I SAW THE OTHER ACFT AT 200 FT DISTANCE AND TOOK EVASIVE ACTION BY PUSHING THE CTL YOKE FULLY FORWARD. THE OTHER ACFT DID NOT TAKE ANY EVASIVE ACTION. NO INJURIES OCCURRED DUE TO THE NEGATIVE G'S AND WE LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. THE OTHER ACFT WAS RED AND WHITE, BUT I DID NOT CONTINUE TO TRACK THE ACFT TO DETERMINE THE REGISTRATION NUMBER. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS INCLUDE OUR ACFT BEING HIDDEN BY THE SUN'S REFLECTION OFF THE OCEAN. ADDITIONALLY, THE ARPT WAS CURRENTLY USING RWY 26. THIS RWY IS NOT NORMALLY USED AND SO THE ENTRY POINTS AND STANDARDS OF THE TFC PATTERN ARE NOT UNIFORM FOR THE LCL TFC. IE, NORMALLY, THIS ARPT USES THE 'RIVER AND HWY 1' AS A CHKPOINT TO ENTER ON A 45 DEG ENTRY, BUT RWY 26 HASN'T ANY STANDARD CHKPOINTS. HUMAN FACTORS INCLUDE MY DIFFICULTTY COMMUNICATING WITH THE STUDENT. I NEGLECTED TO LOOK OUT THE GLARE SCREEN FOR 15-20 SECONDS IN THE DIRECTION FROM WHICH THE OTHER ACFT APCHED. ADDITIONALLY, THE OTHER PLT/CREW MAY HAVE HAD FACTORS THAT CAUSED THEM TO ENTER ON SUCH A SHORT 45 DEG ENTRY.

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.