Narrative:

On aug/xa/98, I was on an IFR flight from frankfort, ky, to nashville, tn. Initially, I was approved for a visual approach into jc tune airport. The AWOS stated that the WX was clear and the wind was from 310 degrees at 6 KTS. At approximately 15 mi out, approach advised me that an aircraft ahead of me had to use the localizer/DME 19 approach into jc tune airport. I was given the same approach and was asked to inform the controller when I had a visual on the airport. At approximately 6 mi out, I established visual contact with the airport. I was informed that the aircraft that I was following had circled to land at the jc tune airport. I took this to mean that aircraft that landed ahead of me circled to land on runway 10 which would have been consistent with the 310 degree wind reported on the ASOS. I canceled IFR at approximately 6 mi northeast of the airport, and was directed to contact TA. I called jc tune unicom for TA's and received no reply. I entered the traffic pattern by a 45 degree entry for a downwind at traffic pattern altitude for runway 10. I made a call to announce that I was entering a downwind for runway 10. After I made my call, another aircraft called downwind for runway 19. Immediately, I noticed a beech bonanza on my right which appeared to be in a right turn approximately 200 ft above me and traveling in the opposite direction. I reacted to the other aircraft by pushing down to increase the separation distance. Several factors may have contributed to the near miss. The right traffic pattern for runway 19 places aircraft on the localizer/DME 19 approach that do not intend to land straight in, but elect to circle to land into the wind on runway 10, into a head-on conflict with aircraft on a downwind for runway 19 in light or downwind conditions. In this case, I could have elected to land on runway 19 with a downwind. This may have reduced the opportunity for the near miss. Since I was approximately 6 mi from the airport when I was cleared to contact TA, my contact time with the unicom and other traffic to obtain traffic information or position was reduced. In the future, I will contact TA a minimum of 15 mi out and maintain a listening watch on both frequencys. My decision to land on runway 10 was made because of the ASOS reported wind favored runway 10, good visual conditions existed, I was in a good position to enter the traffic pattern on a 45 degree entry for the downwind, and I had not received any radio xmissions that indicated a preferred runway in use or conflicting traffic.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC BTWN A GOV PIPER PA31 ON A DOWNWIND LEG IN THE TFC PATTERN AND A BEECH BONANZA IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION 200 FT ABOVE MAKING A R TURN. THE RPTR PUSHED FORWARD TO DSND AFTER OBSERVING THE BONANZA.

Narrative: ON AUG/XA/98, I WAS ON AN IFR FLT FROM FRANKFORT, KY, TO NASHVILLE, TN. INITIALLY, I WAS APPROVED FOR A VISUAL APCH INTO JC TUNE ARPT. THE AWOS STATED THAT THE WX WAS CLR AND THE WIND WAS FROM 310 DEGS AT 6 KTS. AT APPROX 15 MI OUT, APCH ADVISED ME THAT AN ACFT AHEAD OF ME HAD TO USE THE LOC/DME 19 APCH INTO JC TUNE ARPT. I WAS GIVEN THE SAME APCH AND WAS ASKED TO INFORM THE CTLR WHEN I HAD A VISUAL ON THE ARPT. AT APPROX 6 MI OUT, I ESTABLISHED VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE ARPT. I WAS INFORMED THAT THE ACFT THAT I WAS FOLLOWING HAD CIRCLED TO LAND AT THE JC TUNE ARPT. I TOOK THIS TO MEAN THAT ACFT THAT LANDED AHEAD OF ME CIRCLED TO LAND ON RWY 10 WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THE 310 DEG WIND RPTED ON THE ASOS. I CANCELED IFR AT APPROX 6 MI NE OF THE ARPT, AND WAS DIRECTED TO CONTACT TA. I CALLED JC TUNE UNICOM FOR TA'S AND RECEIVED NO REPLY. I ENTERED THE TFC PATTERN BY A 45 DEG ENTRY FOR A DOWNWIND AT TFC PATTERN ALT FOR RWY 10. I MADE A CALL TO ANNOUNCE THAT I WAS ENTERING A DOWNWIND FOR RWY 10. AFTER I MADE MY CALL, ANOTHER ACFT CALLED DOWNWIND FOR RWY 19. IMMEDIATELY, I NOTICED A BEECH BONANZA ON MY R WHICH APPEARED TO BE IN A R TURN APPROX 200 FT ABOVE ME AND TRAVELING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. I REACTED TO THE OTHER ACFT BY PUSHING DOWN TO INCREASE THE SEPARATION DISTANCE. SEVERAL FACTORS MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE NEAR MISS. THE R TFC PATTERN FOR RWY 19 PLACES ACFT ON THE LOC/DME 19 APCH THAT DO NOT INTEND TO LAND STRAIGHT IN, BUT ELECT TO CIRCLE TO LAND INTO THE WIND ON RWY 10, INTO A HEAD-ON CONFLICT WITH ACFT ON A DOWNWIND FOR RWY 19 IN LIGHT OR DOWNWIND CONDITIONS. IN THIS CASE, I COULD HAVE ELECTED TO LAND ON RWY 19 WITH A DOWNWIND. THIS MAY HAVE REDUCED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE NEAR MISS. SINCE I WAS APPROX 6 MI FROM THE ARPT WHEN I WAS CLRED TO CONTACT TA, MY CONTACT TIME WITH THE UNICOM AND OTHER TFC TO OBTAIN TFC INFO OR POS WAS REDUCED. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL CONTACT TA A MINIMUM OF 15 MI OUT AND MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON BOTH FREQS. MY DECISION TO LAND ON RWY 10 WAS MADE BECAUSE OF THE ASOS RPTED WIND FAVORED RWY 10, GOOD VISUAL CONDITIONS EXISTED, I WAS IN A GOOD POS TO ENTER THE TFC PATTERN ON A 45 DEG ENTRY FOR THE DOWNWIND, AND I HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY RADIO XMISSIONS THAT INDICATED A PREFERRED RWY IN USE OR CONFLICTING TFC.

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.