Reported near midair collision occurred while reporter was rolling out on final and conflicted with ...

Attributes
ACN	374757
Time
Date	199707
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : tmb
State Reference	FL
Altitude	msl bound lower : 500 msl bound upper : 500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : tmb
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Christen Eagle II
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	VFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	other : unknown
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 25 flight time total : 1145 flight time type : 75
ASRS Report	374757
Person 2
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : private
Events
Anomaly	conflict : nmac
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : took evasive action
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 299 vertical : 299
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

On the second landing, I decided to make the next landing to a full stop. In the pattern, I so advised the tower. I had already been cleared for another touch-and-go. There was a lot of radio traffic and some of the tower's communications were blocked. I twice asked the tower if I was cleared to land. Having been cleared for a touch-and-go, I entered a right base leg and began to descend. As I was rolling out on final, I saw the shadow of an aircraft heading in the opposite direction. I asked the tower about that aircraft and was told that I had been instructed to extend my downwind leg. I told the tower that I heard no such instruction. I was maneuvering to avoid the other aircraft and maintained contact with the tower, received permission to land and landed. I was flying an aerobatic aircraft which is very maneuverable. I definitely did not receive an instruction to extend my downwind leg, although it is possible that such an instruction was issued but was not received due to a blocked transmission. However, if such an instruction was given to me, I definitely did not acknowledge it. I question why opposite direction operations were going on with traffic in the pattern (wind was not a problem). It seems to me that opposite direction operations should not be allowed at an airport with a fair bit of training, as this airport, without firm procedures as to controller responsibility. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter indicated there was no follow-up call to the tower about the incident. Learned that the other aircraft was an large transport twin. Reporter stated the horizontal and vertical distances were less than 300 ft. Reporter saw the shadow of the aircraft but not the aircraft and at first didn't know if it was above or below although he speculated it might have been below as the shadow got smaller as he maneuvered to avoid the aircraft.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTED NMAC OCCURRED WHILE RPTR WAS ROLLING OUT ON FINAL AND CONFLICTED WITH OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC. TWR HAD INSTRUCTED RPTR TO EXTEND DOWNWIND LEG. RPTR CLAIMS TWR INSTRUCTION TO EXTEND DOWNWIND WAS NOT HEARD.

Narrative: ON THE SECOND LNDG, I DECIDED TO MAKE THE NEXT LNDG TO A FULL STOP. IN THE PATTERN, I SO ADVISED THE TWR. I HAD ALREADY BEEN CLRED FOR ANOTHER TOUCH-AND-GO. THERE WAS A LOT OF RADIO TFC AND SOME OF THE TWR'S COMS WERE BLOCKED. I TWICE ASKED THE TWR IF I WAS CLRED TO LAND. HAVING BEEN CLRED FOR A TOUCH-AND-GO, I ENTERED A R BASE LEG AND BEGAN TO DSND. AS I WAS ROLLING OUT ON FINAL, I SAW THE SHADOW OF AN ACFT HDG IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. I ASKED THE TWR ABOUT THAT ACFT AND WAS TOLD THAT I HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO EXTEND MY DOWNWIND LEG. I TOLD THE TWR THAT I HEARD NO SUCH INSTRUCTION. I WAS MANEUVERING TO AVOID THE OTHER ACFT AND MAINTAINED CONTACT WITH THE TWR, RECEIVED PERMISSION TO LAND AND LANDED. I WAS FLYING AN AEROBATIC ACFT WHICH IS VERY MANEUVERABLE. I DEFINITELY DID NOT RECEIVE AN INSTRUCTION TO EXTEND MY DOWNWIND LEG, ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SUCH AN INSTRUCTION WAS ISSUED BUT WAS NOT RECEIVED DUE TO A BLOCKED XMISSION. HOWEVER, IF SUCH AN INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN TO ME, I DEFINITELY DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT. I QUESTION WHY OPPOSITE DIRECTION OPS WERE GOING ON WITH TFC IN THE PATTERN (WIND WAS NOT A PROB). IT SEEMS TO ME THAT OPPOSITE DIRECTION OPS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT AN ARPT WITH A FAIR BIT OF TRAINING, AS THIS ARPT, WITHOUT FIRM PROCS AS TO CTLR RESPONSIBILITY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR INDICATED THERE WAS NO FOLLOW-UP CALL TO THE TWR ABOUT THE INCIDENT. LEARNED THAT THE OTHER ACFT WAS AN LGT TWIN. RPTR STATED THE HORIZ AND VERT DISTANCES WERE LESS THAN 300 FT. RPTR SAW THE SHADOW OF THE ACFT BUT NOT THE ACFT AND AT FIRST DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS ABOVE OR BELOW ALTHOUGH HE SPECULATED IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BELOW AS THE SHADOW GOT SMALLER AS HE MANEUVERED TO AVOID THE ACFT.

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.

Reported near midair collision occurred while reporter was rolling out on final and conflicted with opposite direction traffic. Tower had instructed reporter to extend downwind leg. Reporter claims tower instruction to extend downwind was not heard.