Potential conflict in traffic pattern after a runway change at oak, ca.

Attributes
ACN	511450
Time
Date	200105
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : oak.airport
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl single value : 1000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	PA-30 Twin Comanche
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	VFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : oak.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : private pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 10 flight time total : 689 flight time type : 350
ASRS Report	511450
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : required legal separation non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Resolutory Action	flight crew : took precautionary avoidance action other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Miss Distance	horizontal : 6000 vertical : 500
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance Airspace Structure ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

I was returning to oakland about XA00 local time, was handled by bay approach and told to expect runway 27R for landing. When switched to tower, told to land runway 33, #2, and to stay north of coliseum (see drawing). When at point a, I saw an air carrier aircraft on final for runway 27L. I then extended downwind to allow air carrier plane to pass. At point B I turned towards runway 33, and the tower advised that I should have stayed north of runway 27R. (Note air carrier planes normally use runway 29, which is closed for resurfacing.) I realize now I should have questioned the tower on how to make pattern when given the clearance, or declined the clearance. It did not occur to me that there would be an aircraft on final to runway 27L while I was on base for runway 33. Tower should have given clearer instructions also.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT IN TFC PATTERN AFTER A RWY CHANGE AT OAK, CA.

Narrative: I WAS RETURNING TO OAKLAND ABOUT XA00 LOCAL TIME, WAS HANDLED BY BAY APCH AND TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 27R FOR LNDG. WHEN SWITCHED TO TWR, TOLD TO LAND RWY 33, #2, AND TO STAY N OF COLISEUM (SEE DRAWING). WHEN AT POINT A, I SAW AN ACR ACFT ON FINAL FOR RWY 27L. I THEN EXTENDED DOWNWIND TO ALLOW ACR PLANE TO PASS. AT POINT B I TURNED TOWARDS RWY 33, AND THE TWR ADVISED THAT I SHOULD HAVE STAYED N OF RWY 27R. (NOTE ACR PLANES NORMALLY USE RWY 29, WHICH IS CLOSED FOR RESURFACING.) I REALIZE NOW I SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE TWR ON HOW TO MAKE PATTERN WHEN GIVEN THE CLRNC, OR DECLINED THE CLRNC. IT DID NOT OCCUR TO ME THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ACFT ON FINAL TO RWY 27L WHILE I WAS ON BASE FOR RWY 33. TWR SHOULD HAVE GIVEN CLEARER INSTRUCTIONS ALSO.

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.