Narrative:

Original flight was from sns to 60S, but due to IFR WX at destination, landed at pdx. When pdx went VFR, 1000 ft to 3000 ft, departed pdx VFR to land at 60S. Received departure clearance to stay on tower frequency for flight (about 5 mi) to pearson. Flight departed runway 10L and was given vectors (left turn) to follow north bank of river (columbia river) wbound to pearson. This is a common procedure for arrs from south to overfly pdx at midfield to north bank of river, turn west bound for landing. Once we became established over the north bank of the river, and about directly north of pdx, tower cleared me to pearson advisory frequency and squawk 1200. With pearson in sight, but visibility very poor, I notified traffic of my intention to land straight in to runway 26 (winds were calm), and received an immediate TA from a 'twin goose' on base to runway 26 at pearson. I immediately turned right, northbound, to get to a position north of the airport where I could enter the traffic pattern downwind, avoid the 'twin goose,' and advised the traffic of my intentions on the advisory frequency (123.0). To avoid the goose on base, I initiated a climb, but immediately entered clouds. At this point, I lost visual contact with the ground, so I continued to climb to about 1700 ft to VMC. I could see to the west that the undercast was broken, so flew to the vicinity of vancouver lake, the point where normal traffic approachs pearson airpark, flew to and entered a normal downwind, right traffic for runway 26, and landed at pearson field. The momentary violation of VFR in this case did not become a serious safety issue, and probably went unnoticed by controllers. What concerns me on this flight was that, due to marginal WX conditions and the traffic in the pattern at pearson field (which was surprising, considering that area conditions went to VMC only mins earlier) I flew for several mins in the class C airspace, and very much in (but below) the IFR approach path to pdx. After reaching VMC, I considered calling pdx tower again, but, after the surprise of the twin goose, I did not want to leave the advisory frequency because of the poor visibility. I am not sure what the best response to this situation should have been. In retrospect, I believe that I would do everything the same if the situation occurred again. I don't think that staying with pdx tower would have been safe, as it could have resulted in a collision with the twin goose. Going back to pdx tower after changing my approach to traditional pattern instead of straight-in could have also been a problem if there was other traffic for pearson. Controllers had my VFR squawk, so I know they would have diverted other aircraft if a conflict arose. In this case, all ended well, with no traffic near misses, so what I did worked out, but it certainly could have resulted in some real problems.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PVT PLT OF AN SMA SEL ASCENDED INTO THE OVCST TO AVOID ANOTHER ACFT ON BASE LEG TO AN UNCTLED ARPT.

Narrative: ORIGINAL FLT WAS FROM SNS TO 60S, BUT DUE TO IFR WX AT DEST, LANDED AT PDX. WHEN PDX WENT VFR, 1000 FT TO 3000 FT, DEPARTED PDX VFR TO LAND AT 60S. RECEIVED DEP CLRNC TO STAY ON TWR FREQ FOR FLT (ABOUT 5 MI) TO PEARSON. FLT DEPARTED RWY 10L AND WAS GIVEN VECTORS (L TURN) TO FOLLOW N BANK OF RIVER (COLUMBIA RIVER) WBOUND TO PEARSON. THIS IS A COMMON PROC FOR ARRS FROM S TO OVERFLY PDX AT MIDFIELD TO N BANK OF RIVER, TURN W BOUND FOR LNDG. ONCE WE BECAME ESTABLISHED OVER THE N BANK OF THE RIVER, AND ABOUT DIRECTLY N OF PDX, TWR CLRED ME TO PEARSON ADVISORY FREQ AND SQUAWK 1200. WITH PEARSON IN SIGHT, BUT VISIBILITY VERY POOR, I NOTIFIED TFC OF MY INTENTION TO LAND STRAIGHT IN TO RWY 26 (WINDS WERE CALM), AND RECEIVED AN IMMEDIATE TA FROM A 'TWIN GOOSE' ON BASE TO RWY 26 AT PEARSON. I IMMEDIATELY TURNED R, NBOUND, TO GET TO A POS N OF THE ARPT WHERE I COULD ENTER THE TFC PATTERN DOWNWIND, AVOID THE 'TWIN GOOSE,' AND ADVISED THE TFC OF MY INTENTIONS ON THE ADVISORY FREQ (123.0). TO AVOID THE GOOSE ON BASE, I INITIATED A CLB, BUT IMMEDIATELY ENTERED CLOUDS. AT THIS POINT, I LOST VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE GND, SO I CONTINUED TO CLB TO ABOUT 1700 FT TO VMC. I COULD SEE TO THE W THAT THE UNDERCAST WAS BROKEN, SO FLEW TO THE VICINITY OF VANCOUVER LAKE, THE POINT WHERE NORMAL TFC APCHS PEARSON AIRPARK, FLEW TO AND ENTERED A NORMAL DOWNWIND, R TFC FOR RWY 26, AND LANDED AT PEARSON FIELD. THE MOMENTARY VIOLATION OF VFR IN THIS CASE DID NOT BECOME A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE, AND PROBABLY WENT UNNOTICED BY CTLRS. WHAT CONCERNS ME ON THIS FLT WAS THAT, DUE TO MARGINAL WX CONDITIONS AND THE TFC IN THE PATTERN AT PEARSON FIELD (WHICH WAS SURPRISING, CONSIDERING THAT AREA CONDITIONS WENT TO VMC ONLY MINS EARLIER) I FLEW FOR SEVERAL MINS IN THE CLASS C AIRSPACE, AND VERY MUCH IN (BUT BELOW) THE IFR APCH PATH TO PDX. AFTER REACHING VMC, I CONSIDERED CALLING PDX TWR AGAIN, BUT, AFTER THE SURPRISE OF THE TWIN GOOSE, I DID NOT WANT TO LEAVE THE ADVISORY FREQ BECAUSE OF THE POOR VISIBILITY. I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE BEST RESPONSE TO THIS SIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. IN RETROSPECT, I BELIEVE THAT I WOULD DO EVERYTHING THE SAME IF THE SIT OCCURRED AGAIN. I DON'T THINK THAT STAYING WITH PDX TWR WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFE, AS IT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A COLLISION WITH THE TWIN GOOSE. GOING BACK TO PDX TWR AFTER CHANGING MY APCH TO TRADITIONAL PATTERN INSTEAD OF STRAIGHT-IN COULD HAVE ALSO BEEN A PROB IF THERE WAS OTHER TFC FOR PEARSON. CTLRS HAD MY VFR SQUAWK, SO I KNOW THEY WOULD HAVE DIVERTED OTHER ACFT IF A CONFLICT AROSE. IN THIS CASE, ALL ENDED WELL, WITH NO TFC NEAR MISSES, SO WHAT I DID WORKED OUT, BUT IT CERTAINLY COULD HAVE RESULTED IN SOME REAL PROBS.

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.