Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: U42.Airport, UT
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 8
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: CTAF U42
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While inbound on the 45 for a non-controlled airport at just over 2 miles out and nearly abeam the departure threshold we encountered a low wing aircraft crossing under [us] by about 30 feet while the low wing aircraft was making its crosswind to downwind turn.  We had announced a 7 mile and 4 mile inbound on the 45. The low wing aircraft had announced their crosswind turn soon after the 4 mile inbound announcement; and were announcing their downwind turn as they passed immediately below us.  Following the crosswind announcement the two IFR current pilots on the 45 and the student pilot and instructor in the low wing aircraft did not see the oncoming traffic until within 50 feet of each other; despite looking.  The visibility was 8-10 miles in smoke and haze. I had the landing and taxi lights on; it is unknown if the low wing aircraft did. Neither made a 'negative contact' on visualization announcement in the short time.  After the close pass we slowed; entered the downwind and allowed low wing aircraft to land first with no incident. We discussed the incident upon meeting on the ground.  The student was concerned that he had not made; or we hadn't heard; his 'turning downwind' call; however that was made just as we were passing each other.  They confirmed they did not see us until immediately before passing below us.  The student also commented 'the low wing aircraft is a very fast airplane'.Contributing factors were: 1) the student transitioning to a high performance complex aircraft; and a short 1.5 NM departure window before hitting Bravo airspace may have led to the student turning crosswind just after passing the departure end of the runway; and; in transitioning from takeoff to approach configuration to stay in the pattern; the speed and complexity of the aircraft led to a wide 2 mile out turn to downwind; which intercepts the 45 inbound course.  2) Visibility was limited of both aircraft due to smoke; haze and mountainous background in both directions and an intercept course. 3) Neither pilot announced negative contact as both were focused on finding the other aircraft.  Based on AC 90.66 and AC 90.42 and SA-08; other than the wide; 2 mile out; downwind turn all other aspects of the flight of both pilots was within the recommended guidelines.  There are 2 aspects of these ACs that are concerning.  One is radio communication which is recommended at 10 miles out; on entering downwind; base; etc. I think the time; distance; and location between 10 miles and entering down wind is considerable; we had announced at 7 miles; when ATC released us to the CTAF and at 4 miles on the 45. A 2 mile announcement isn't a bad idea either; although it would have made no difference in this case. The second is the recommendation that crosswind can be entered immediately past the departure end of the runway. Although this may be necessary in some cases; such as the VFR departure out of Boeing Field; this significantly shortens the time and distance between the crosswind turn and encountering the incoming 45 traffic; and leads to visually limited continuous intercept course. I would suggest extending your departure leg at least ?? to ?? mile beyond the departure end is a much safer pattern; both for visualization of pattern aircraft; and increasing the distance between the turning downwind traffic and inbound 45 traffic.




Synopsis: Two aircraft on downwind to CTAF U42 had a near miss after one pilot in the pattern turned downwind early to avoid Class B and may not have made a downwind call in accordance with Advisory Circular 90.66 or the other pilot entering the pattern downwind did not hear the downwind call.