Narrative:

Lakeland approach had first asked that no more planes enter the holding pattern over lake parker. They advised all aircraft to 'stay clear of the lake.' I decided to remain about 5 mi out and do 'turns around a point' type turns. I was at 2000 ft. The approach controller was repeating that 'all aircraft are to remain clear of the lake for at least 45 mins.' another aircraft called in to find out if the lake hancock hold was being used. (This is the lake southeast of parker that is also used as a holding point. ATC advised that lake hancock was available for holding, so I decided to fly south to lake hancock to hold there instead of the northeast side of lake parker. As I got to lake parker (abeam) they opened up the holding pattern. Only about 10 mins had elapsed of the projected 45 mins. Since I was abeam lake parker, I opted to enter the hold there instead of lake hancock. As I turned and was descending to 1200 ft, I planned on sliding into the pattern behind 2 other aircraft, the second of which was a low wing. As ATC told me to enter the hold, they released the people ahead of me to fly the approach. The ground track of the low wing had now changed from what I had anticipated. (I anticipated that he would be remaining over the lake shore.) if I had remained at the same heading and altitude I would have flown over his plane, not hit him. I did, however, elect to fly a right 360 degree turn which did not exceed 30 degrees of bank. The approach controller asked me if I saw the plane that (I) almost took out. I said 'yes.' I had the aircraft in sight at all times and do not feel it was an near midair collision. The evasive action that I took was to only avoid having an near midair collision. From where the controller was at the airport, it could have looked closer than it was. After being told to enter the hold, and the other aircraft told to depart the hold and fly the approach, ATC's instructions to me were to fly the approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT X ENTERED VFR HOLDING PATTERN, TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO MISS ACFT.

Narrative: LAKELAND APCH HAD FIRST ASKED THAT NO MORE PLANES ENTER THE HOLDING PATTERN OVER LAKE PARKER. THEY ADVISED ALL ACFT TO 'STAY CLR OF THE LAKE.' I DECIDED TO REMAIN ABOUT 5 MI OUT AND DO 'TURNS AROUND A POINT' TYPE TURNS. I WAS AT 2000 FT. THE APCH CTLR WAS REPEATING THAT 'ALL ACFT ARE TO REMAIN CLR OF THE LAKE FOR AT LEAST 45 MINS.' ANOTHER ACFT CALLED IN TO FIND OUT IF THE LAKE HANCOCK HOLD WAS BEING USED. (THIS IS THE LAKE SE OF PARKER THAT IS ALSO USED AS A HOLDING POINT. ATC ADVISED THAT LAKE HANCOCK WAS AVAILABLE FOR HOLDING, SO I DECIDED TO FLY S TO LAKE HANCOCK TO HOLD THERE INSTEAD OF THE NE SIDE OF LAKE PARKER. AS I GOT TO LAKE PARKER (ABEAM) THEY OPENED UP THE HOLDING PATTERN. ONLY ABOUT 10 MINS HAD ELAPSED OF THE PROJECTED 45 MINS. SINCE I WAS ABEAM LAKE PARKER, I OPTED TO ENTER THE HOLD THERE INSTEAD OF LAKE HANCOCK. AS I TURNED AND WAS DSNDING TO 1200 FT, I PLANNED ON SLIDING INTO THE PATTERN BEHIND 2 OTHER ACFT, THE SECOND OF WHICH WAS A LOW WING. AS ATC TOLD ME TO ENTER THE HOLD, THEY RELEASED THE PEOPLE AHEAD OF ME TO FLY THE APCH. THE GND TRACK OF THE LOW WING HAD NOW CHANGED FROM WHAT I HAD ANTICIPATED. (I ANTICIPATED THAT HE WOULD BE REMAINING OVER THE LAKE SHORE.) IF I HAD REMAINED AT THE SAME HDG AND ALT I WOULD HAVE FLOWN OVER HIS PLANE, NOT HIT HIM. I DID, HOWEVER, ELECT TO FLY A R 360 DEG TURN WHICH DID NOT EXCEED 30 DEGS OF BANK. THE APCH CTLR ASKED ME IF I SAW THE PLANE THAT (I) ALMOST TOOK OUT. I SAID 'YES.' I HAD THE ACFT IN SIGHT AT ALL TIMES AND DO NOT FEEL IT WAS AN NMAC. THE EVASIVE ACTION THAT I TOOK WAS TO ONLY AVOID HAVING AN NMAC. FROM WHERE THE CTLR WAS AT THE ARPT, IT COULD HAVE LOOKED CLOSER THAN IT WAS. AFTER BEING TOLD TO ENTER THE HOLD, AND THE OTHER ACFT TOLD TO DEPART THE HOLD AND FLY THE APCH, ATC'S INSTRUCTIONS TO ME WERE TO FLY THE APCH.

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.