Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 19; Flight Crew Total 1250; Flight Crew Type 87
Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
I was practicing the VOR-A approach into Penn Valley airport. Upon departing on my take-off roll from SEG immediately before the incident; I reported my intention to fly a practice VOR approach into Penn Valley. Once airborne and flying to the outbound leg of the approach; I announced my intention to fly the VOR-A approach into SEG. I then transitioned onto the gauges and my safety pilot continued to report our position to area traffic by saying 'our call sign; VOR INBOUND.' There was no reported traffic or announcements from any aircraft in the area on the published UNICOM frequency. Upon reaching the Missed Approach Point and transitioning from a descent to a climb out a [high wing light aircraft] appeared to fill the cockpit window. It was flying southbound at about 1;000 FT potentially in the pattern for downwind approach for Runway 35 at SEG. I took immediate evasive action and flew north to IPT. The [other aircraft] did not announce its presence in the area. [He] appeared unaware of our presence and may not have had its radio on. In addition to announcing my practice approach intentions; I should have given position reports in relation to the airport for non-instrument pilots who may be unaware of instrument procedures. However; it should be common knowledge that the SEG VOR is 2 miles south southwest of the field.
A pilot executing a SEG VOR-A approach with a Safety Pilot had a near miss with another aircraft at the Missed Approach Point as the other aircraft appeared to be downwind for Runway 35 and not reporting on the CTAF frequency.