PA28 pilot experienced confliction with other VFR aircraft landing at mev utilizing CTAF procedures.

Attributes
ACN	621497
Time
Date	200405
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mev.airport
State Reference	NV
Altitude	msl bound lower : 5500 msl bound upper : 5700
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : ord.tower
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	PA-28 Cherokee/Archer II/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : traffic pattern
Flight Plan	None
Aircraft 2
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : intermediate altitude
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : private
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 10.4 flight time total : 47.8 flight time type : 28.8
ASRS Report	621497
Person 2
Affiliation	other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne critical non adherence : published procedure non adherence : required legal separation other spatial deviation other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 500 vertical : 200
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

I was inbound to minden-tahoe airport. I made a position report over the 'ski ponds' at 5700 ft MSL (pattern altitude) that I was entering on a 45 degree entry to left downwind runway 34. As I was entering downwind runway 34 abeam the runway 16 numbers, I spotted another aircraft at 11 O'clock position passing left to right, ahead of me, at a lower altitude. I didn't take evasive action because it was apparent to me that we were not on a collision course. The other aircraft climbed to the same altitude as I, flying a wider pattern. The other aircraft transmitted on CTAF that I almost hit him. I transmitted that I had visual contact of the other aircraft. The other aircraft transmitted that I did not make a position report and he was unaware of my presence. I transmitted that I did make a position report over the 'ski ponds'. After landing, I spoke in person with the pilot of the other aircraft. I told him that I was unaware that his aircraft was in the pattern. He stated that he did not announce his intentions over CTAF. Conclusion: when entering the pattern, I believe that it would be safer to enter the downwind leg abeam midfield rather than abeam the runway numbers. This would reduce the chances of aircraft converging from different altitudes. I also believe it would be easier to determine flight paths of converging aircraft at abeam midfield, because the aircraft in the pattern would be in straight and level flight, rather than a climbing turn from crosswind to downwind.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA28 PLT EXPERIENCED CONFLICTION WITH OTHER VFR ACFT LNDG AT MEV UTILIZING CTAF PROCS.

Narrative: I WAS INBOUND TO MINDEN-TAHOE ARPT. I MADE A POS RPT OVER THE 'SKI PONDS' AT 5700 FT MSL (PATTERN ALT) THAT I WAS ENTERING ON A 45 DEG ENTRY TO L DOWNWIND RWY 34. AS I WAS ENTERING DOWNWIND RWY 34 ABEAM THE RWY 16 NUMBERS, I SPOTTED ANOTHER ACFT AT 11 O'CLOCK POS PASSING L TO R, AHEAD OF ME, AT A LOWER ALT. I DIDN'T TAKE EVASIVE ACTION BECAUSE IT WAS APPARENT TO ME THAT WE WERE NOT ON A COLLISION COURSE. THE OTHER ACFT CLBED TO THE SAME ALT AS I, FLYING A WIDER PATTERN. THE OTHER ACFT XMITTED ON CTAF THAT I ALMOST HIT HIM. I XMITTED THAT I HAD VISUAL CONTACT OF THE OTHER ACFT. THE OTHER ACFT XMITTED THAT I DID NOT MAKE A POS RPT AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF MY PRESENCE. I XMITTED THAT I DID MAKE A POS RPT OVER THE 'SKI PONDS'. AFTER LNDG, I SPOKE IN PERSON WITH THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT. I TOLD HIM THAT I WAS UNAWARE THAT HIS ACFT WAS IN THE PATTERN. HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT ANNOUNCE HIS INTENTIONS OVER CTAF. CONCLUSION: WHEN ENTERING THE PATTERN, I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE SAFER TO ENTER THE DOWNWIND LEG ABEAM MIDFIELD RATHER THAN ABEAM THE RWY NUMBERS. THIS WOULD REDUCE THE CHANCES OF ACFT CONVERGING FROM DIFFERENT ALTS. I ALSO BELIEVE IT WOULD BE EASIER TO DETERMINE FLT PATHS OF CONVERGING ACFT AT ABEAM MIDFIELD, BECAUSE THE ACFT IN THE PATTERN WOULD BE IN STRAIGHT AND LEVEL FLT, RATHER THAN A CLBING TURN FROM XWIND TO DOWNWIND.

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.