Narrative:

After 2 hours of IFR low approach training in a twin, I made a flight with another plane to lou at 2500 ft (2000 ft AGL). Above the final runway 24 the control tower told me, 'oth down runway 24 and clear to land.' a plane just terminated his final, so I thought the controller asked me to try to land on the runway 24 like a direct final without a pattern (as with a IFR procedure) so I decided to do a 360 degree turn to lose altitude and continue my final. I started to do so (as I tried to tell my decision to the controller) when I understood that the controller asked to follow another plane in the downwind. I saw the plane in the downwind on my left at 500 ft at my altitude. It was ok, but I have understood that, 'clear to land' in this case meant also do a normal VFR pattern and land, which was not clear during the event.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF AN SMA SEL HAD NMAC WITH ANOTHER ACFT IN THE TFC PATTERN DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDING TWR INSTRUCTIONS.

Narrative: AFTER 2 HRS OF IFR LOW APCH TRAINING IN A TWIN, I MADE A FLT WITH ANOTHER PLANE TO LOU AT 2500 FT (2000 FT AGL). ABOVE THE FINAL RWY 24 THE CTL TWR TOLD ME, 'OTH DOWN RWY 24 AND CLR TO LAND.' A PLANE JUST TERMINATED HIS FINAL, SO I THOUGHT THE CTLR ASKED ME TO TRY TO LAND ON THE RWY 24 LIKE A DIRECT FINAL WITHOUT A PATTERN (AS WITH A IFR PROC) SO I DECIDED TO DO A 360 DEG TURN TO LOSE ALT AND CONTINUE MY FINAL. I STARTED TO DO SO (AS I TRIED TO TELL MY DECISION TO THE CTLR) WHEN I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CTLR ASKED TO FOLLOW ANOTHER PLANE IN THE DOWNWIND. I SAW THE PLANE IN THE DOWNWIND ON MY L AT 500 FT AT MY ALT. IT WAS OK, BUT I HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT, 'CLR TO LAND' IN THIS CASE MEANT ALSO DO A NORMAL VFR PATTERN AND LAND, WHICH WAS NOT CLR DURING THE EVENT.

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.