PA-24 Comanche
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 9; Flight Crew Total 28000; Flight Crew Type 9
Communication Breakdown
Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Human Factors
As background; ZZZ was heavily congested with training and weekend aviators. The approach to the downwind leg was reported via UNICOM as 4nm SE to enter a 45 - downwind entry. We coordinated spacing with another crosswind aircraft to follow us for spacing in the pattern.Reported downwind uneventfully and recognized the aircraft we were to follow and minimized their pattern to minimize spacing conflicts. Reported [our] base turn to UNICOM; uneventfully. Our track on base leg was approximately 2 nm from the end of the runway. At no time was our location questioned by the conflicting near miss aircraft.Reported a base to final turn; uneventfully and unquestioned. Upon the completion of the turn to final; I focused on vertical alignment to the runway and did not see the conflicting near miss aircraft. The PNF (Pilot Not Flying); in a radio call questioned the conflicting near miss aircraft to determine the position upon hearing the UNICOM base report. For clarification; the safety pilot - PNF; is a seasoned 121 CA (Captain) and highly experienced in the PA24-250 with close to 2;000 hours in type. After it was determined the conflicting aircraft turned inside of our location; resulting in cutting us off placing our aircraft in a hazardous flight profile; PNF took control of the aircraft in a professionally coordinated manner.At this time; the conflicting near miss aircraft was well within 1/4 NM and somewhat above our altitude; which was approximately 300 ft AGL. Because of the proximity to us; and apparently being unaware of our location; the resolution was complex. Keep in mind in their base to final turn (RH pattern) with a low wing aircraft [they] would have then been unable to locate us.Additionally; as we both rolled out on final we were both nearly lined up on the centerline; the closure rate was approximately 42 FPS and without evasive action; contact would have occurred in about 30 seconds; short of the runway; all due to the difference in V-ref and approach speeds. The PNF recognized this before I had visual contact with the conflicting traffic and they took control of the aircraft and became the PF.The evasive maneuver was complex in that [the other aircraft's] intentions seemed unpredictable and we did not want to initiate a go-around with the associated high deck angle; which would interrupt visual conflict with the conflicting traffic. Communication from their aircraft was weak and seemed confused as they; on short final; radioed 'how many aircraft are in the pattern and where are you located'. We discussed the possibility that they may begin a go around and that would worsen the conflict since we may have lost visual contact and keep in mind... at this time we were behind their location and out of view.In the interest of safety; we chose to sidestep slightly left and to pass them on the level and then after we cleared the aircraft to begin a go around. The point we were trying to achieve was to maintain visual contact with the conflicting aircraft until we passed clear of their position.
GA pilot reported a NMAC in traffic pattern occurred when another aircraft turned in front of them requiring an evasive maneuver and go around.