Narrative:

I requested a practice [approach] from boston approach for RNAV 15 at pym. I was northwest of the airport approximately over 1b9 and was told to go direct to fared then was cleared for the approach. I was expecting to be notified of any traffic in the pattern before scald (FAF) then switched to the CTAF. Instead I was told to close the flight plan on the ground with boston; after landing. I assumed that I was being treated as an instrument flight and there was no traffic at pym. I queried the controller about closing a flight plan on the ground rather than in the air. He said that I could cancel in the air if I changed to another facility. Since I was near the FAF; and had a high workload; I said that I would cancel on the ground. I was flying with a fully qualified safety pilot; a garmin 400 with adsb in and out with traffic advisories; and was still with boston approach. At DH of 500 feet MSL; I looked up and landed visually. At that time my safety pilot pointed out another aircraft in the opposite direction passing above and to my left. Apparently he did not notice the oncoming traffic during the approach. I was on [approach frequency] and wasn't released to change to the CTAF and did not hear the other traffic calls in the pattern. The problem was caused by a misunderstanding between me and approach. I may not have indicated that I wanted a practice approach rather than an IFR clearance. I didn't ask for a clearance. If I was considered on a clearance; then I was directed to land with a potential conflict. The problem would not have occurred if I was advised to go to the CTAF before the FAF. Being PIC I am responsible for the safety of the flight; and could have broken off the approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA pilot reported a communication breakdown with ATC led to a near midair collision at a non-towered airport.

Narrative: I requested a practice [approach] from Boston Approach for RNAV 15 at PYM. I was NW of the airport approximately over 1B9 and was told to go direct to FARED then was cleared for the approach. I was expecting to be notified of any traffic in the pattern before SCALD (FAF) then switched to the CTAF. Instead I was told to close the flight plan on the ground with Boston; after landing. I assumed that I was being treated as an instrument flight and there was no traffic at PYM. I queried the Controller about closing a flight plan on the ground rather than in the air. He said that I could cancel in the air if I changed to another facility. Since I was near the FAF; and had a high workload; I said that I would cancel on the ground. I was flying with a fully qualified safety pilot; a Garmin 400 with ADSB in and out with traffic advisories; and was still with Boston Approach. AT DH of 500 feet MSL; I looked up and landed visually. At that time my safety pilot pointed out another aircraft in the opposite direction passing above and to my left. Apparently he did not notice the oncoming traffic during the approach. I was on [Approach frequency] and wasn't released to change to the CTAF and did not hear the other traffic calls in the pattern. The problem was caused by a misunderstanding between me and Approach. I may not have indicated that I wanted a practice approach rather than an IFR clearance. I didn't ask for a clearance. If I was considered on a clearance; then I was directed to land with a potential conflict. The problem would not have occurred if I was advised to go to the CTAF before the FAF. Being PIC I am responsible for the safety of the flight; and could have broken off the approach.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.