Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 22; Flight Crew Total 719; Flight Crew Type 247
Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Human Factors
Three aircraft were inbound to GIF (Winter Haven; FL). The winds favored Runway 23. I was 3rd in line behind a Cessna Cardinal; and a Cessna 172. We were communicating our distance out over the CTAF; so as to keep adequate spacing from each other; and advise any aircraft in the vicinity of our location; although I do not recall hearing any position reports from anyone in the pattern; when I called at 8 nautical miles and again inside 5 nautical miles.I had initially planned to enter the pattern either with an upwind entry to a crosswind; and downwind; but the lead airplane - the Cardinal - declared his intention over the CTAF to execute a straight in approach. The 172 and I; in turn; then declared similar intentions and continued to give our distance from each other and the airport. I believe my last report was just inside 3 nautical miles. The Cardinal indicated an intention to land long; did so; and was rolling out when the 172 declared there was insufficient space and announced a go around. This left me the next in line; and I observed the Cardinal exiting the runway.At about that time; there was an announcement that a Cessna 150 was on the downwind. I did not have visual contact with the 150; and did not know where on the downwind leg it was located; so I proceeded with the straight in. Normally I would expect an initial announcement of being on the downwind to take place before the aircraft crossed abeam the departure end of the runway; or even farther out; so not having visual contact was not particularly surprising; as it was slightly hazy at that time of day.At less than a mile from the threshold; I heard the 150 announce a turn from base to final. I immediately keyed the mike and requested he give his location. His response was; 'About 100 feet off your left wing.' I observed no aircraft at that location; and believed any sort of evasive maneuver that close to the ground without a target in sight to be unsafe and unwise. The individual in the 150 then launched into a tirade on the radio about proper pattern procedures. The pilot of the 172 who was on the go around came on and suggested we all just fly the airplane and cool down. The response from the pilot of the 150 was to; 'look at my middle finger.' I remained silent on the frequency; focused on the landing; which was completed without incident; and announced; 'clear off 23 at Bravo;' taxied and proceeded to secure the aircraft.As I was doing so; an individual walked up to me and announced; 'You almost killed us! Didn't you see me?' I told him I had not seen him. He then continued his tirade about proper pattern procedures. I informed him again I had not seen him at any time. (I probably should have asked him if he had seen me; but did not due to the hostile attitude he was demonstrating. I always fly with my wingtip strobes; and landing light on - both Technical Service Ordered.) As he was departing I informed him that according to the A.I.M.; straight in approaches to non-towered fields are acceptable practice. I have no idea if he was paying attention. Had he announced his location on the downwind; I might have been better able to spot the 150 and go into an upwind leg. I had well over an hour of reserve fuel; and was in no particular rush to land.During a subsequent conversation with the pilot of the 172; he indicated his ADS-B system showed the 150 was engaging in rapid patterns; sometimes called 'short circuits'; with turns out at midfield and a climb into the downwind. Almost as if he was trying to squeeze as many landings in as short a time as possible in the rental airplane; however that may simply be speculation on my part.Straight in approaches to non-towered fields are a part of instrument currency procedures; necessary to comply with the requirement for 6 approaches to minimums. Therefore; the proposal now being considered for a constant turn from downwind to base to final without going wings level prior to the turn to final; and the associated scan for straight in traffic; seems dangerous to me. I understand the desire to eliminate the base to final stall/spin problem which the proposed pattern modification is supposed to help. However implementing it may just result in more of the situations which happened here; even though I have no idea what kind of a pattern the 150 pilot was executing.
Experimental aircraft pilot reported a near-mid-air-collision with a C150 on final approach to a non-towered airport.