Narrative:

Approaching pao from the southeast, it was noted that runway 31 was in use at the pao, class D airspace. At XA00 local the tower closed. ATIS stated to use a pattern for entry when tower closed. I proceeded northeast of pao to avoid class C airspace at sjc, and entered on a 45 degrees to right downwind for runway 31. I previously heard another aircraft on CTAF using right traffic to runway 31. The san francisco VFR terminal area chart also indicated right traffic for runway 31. While entering the pattern, I called out my position on the 45 degree entry downwind leg, base leg and final on CTAF. While I was in the pattern, 2 aircraft called intentions to do straight in approachs. One said he thought it would be close between his aircraft and mine. I suggested he enter the traffic pattern. He elected to do a left 360 degree turn on final approach. Someone on the ground told him he should have done the 360 degree turn to the right for noise abatement. All aircraft landed without incident. The problem was increased danger of collision between aircraft approaching to land at an airport where the tower was closed. It was caused by 2 pilots/aircraft doing non standard VFR approachs for landing (straight-INS). The solution is for all pilots to do standard pattern entries to insure traffic visualization separation. Ps: this happens frequently at uncontrolled airports.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AA5B PLT DOWNWIND AT UNCTLED TWR CLOSED ARPT SUGGEST TO PLT ON STRAIGHT IN APCH TO ENTER TFC PATTERN IN AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SEPARATION. PLT DOES 360 DEGS OVER POPULATED AREA INSTEAD.

Narrative: APCHING PAO FROM THE SE, IT WAS NOTED THAT RWY 31 WAS IN USE AT THE PAO, CLASS D AIRSPACE. AT XA00 LCL THE TWR CLOSED. ATIS STATED TO USE A PATTERN FOR ENTRY WHEN TWR CLOSED. I PROCEEDED NE OF PAO TO AVOID CLASS C AIRSPACE AT SJC, AND ENTERED ON A 45 DEGS TO R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 31. I PREVIOUSLY HEARD ANOTHER ACFT ON CTAF USING R TFC TO RWY 31. THE SAN FRANCISCO VFR TERMINAL AREA CHART ALSO INDICATED R TFC FOR RWY 31. WHILE ENTERING THE PATTERN, I CALLED OUT MY POS ON THE 45 DEG ENTRY DOWNWIND LEG, BASE LEG AND FINAL ON CTAF. WHILE I WAS IN THE PATTERN, 2 ACFT CALLED INTENTIONS TO DO STRAIGHT IN APCHS. ONE SAID HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE CLOSE BTWN HIS ACFT AND MINE. I SUGGESTED HE ENTER THE TFC PATTERN. HE ELECTED TO DO A L 360 DEG TURN ON FINAL APCH. SOMEONE ON THE GND TOLD HIM HE SHOULD HAVE DONE THE 360 DEG TURN TO THE R FOR NOISE ABATEMENT. ALL ACFT LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE PROB WAS INCREASED DANGER OF COLLISION BTWN ACFT APCHING TO LAND AT AN ARPT WHERE THE TWR WAS CLOSED. IT WAS CAUSED BY 2 PLTS/ACFT DOING NON STANDARD VFR APCHS FOR LNDG (STRAIGHT-INS). THE SOLUTION IS FOR ALL PLTS TO DO STANDARD PATTERN ENTRIES TO INSURE TFC VISUALIZATION SEPARATION. PS: THIS HAPPENS FREQUENTLY AT UNCTLED ARPTS.

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.