Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 25; Flight Crew Total 1680; Flight Crew Type 1020
Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Human Factors; Airport
While flying a RNAV (GPS) Runway 29 Approach; I incorrectly identified the runway as Runway 22 when calling my distance and altitude on the CTAF. When the close encounter occurred; I was VFR looking at the runway because I was below the Visual Descent Point. Another aircraft was on short final for Runway 22 at the same time I was on short final for Runway 29. The runways almost intersect at the threshold of each runway with Runway 22 glidepath 100 ft. above the threshold of Runway 29. The other aircraft passed ahead and above me while I was on short final for Runway 29.I reported on the CTAF that I had the other aircraft in sight and I announced that I was short final for Runway 29 and not Runway 22. In addition to the landing aircraft; one other aircraft in the traffic pattern was calling its position for Runway 22 during my approach to Runway 29. I mis-stated my position as being on approach for Runway 22 on one other occasion during the final approach phase. The problem was a close encounter of two aircraft approaching intersecting runway glidepaths near the thresholds at the same time. Contributing to the problem was my mis-identification of the runway I was approaching. This created confusion and surprise to the pilot of the other aircraft. To prevent recurrence; I need to check the approach more carefully and correctly identify the runway. My focus on managing the approach when on instruments while hearing other aircraft identify Runway 22 in their callouts; distracted me from identifying the correct runway I was approaching as Runway 29 and not Runway 22.
C182 pilot reported a NMAC at a non towered airport.