NMAC BTWN ACR A AND UGA B.

Narrative

WE WERE APCHING AVD USING RWY 5. AT APPROX 2-3 MI OUT OUR TCASII WARNED OF TFC OFF OUR R FRONT. WE CONTINUED TO MONITOR THE APCH AND LOOK FOR TFC. A FEW SECONDS LATER THE FO SAID HE HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME OUR TCASII SYS GAVE US A CLB RA. I INITIATED A MISSED APCH WHILE THE FO MONITORED THE TFC. HE SAID THAT HE THOUGHT THE LIGHT ACFT HAD SEEN US BECAUSE HE INITIATED A SHARP R DSNDING TURN. AFTER LATER TALKING WITH THE TWR PERSONNEL ON THE PHONE I FOUND OUT THAT VFR APCHS WERE BEING CONDUCTED TO RWY 16 WITH 3 LIGHT ACFT IN THE PATTERN. THIS TYPE OF TFC CONFIGN CAUSES AN OVERLAP IN TFC PATTERNS BTWN RWY 05 STRAIGHT IN APCHS AND R VFR PATTERNS TO RWY 16. I BELIEVE THE POOR VISIBILITY CONTRIBUTED TO THIS INCIDENT. ALSO THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE LIGHT ACFT WAS FLYING A WIDE DOWNWIND OR THAT HE WAS NOT UNDER TWR CTL AND HAD STRAYED INTO THE ARPT TFC AREA. THE TWR PERSONNEL WERE NOT AWARE OF THE CONFLICT AND ASKED WHAT THE REASON FOR OUR MISSED APCH WAS. THE INTRUDING ACFT WAS A HIGH WING CESSNA TYPE ACFT. TO AVOID THIS TYPE CONFLICT IN THE FUTURE I THINK THAT XING TFC PATTERNS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ESPECIALLY VISIBILITY LESS THAN 3-4 MI. IT IS TOO HARD TO SEE SMALL LIGHT ACFT WITH POOR VISIBILITY AT THE SPDS THAT ACR ACFT FLY. IF XING PATTERNS MUST BE UTILIZED THEN THERE SHOULD BE WIDER SPACING BTWN TFC SO THAT TCASII WILL NOT SENSE A CONFLICT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 277909: MD88 WAS ON APCH IN THE LNDG CONFIGN. JUST AFTER 1000 FT AGL TCASII ALERTED TO 'TFC' OFF OUR R FRONT. I PICKED UP A LIGHT ACFT WITHIN 5 SECONDS AT OUR ALT BEGINNING A TURN TOWARD OUR ACFT. TCASII CALLED AN RA TO 'CLB' AND CAPT STARTED A MISSED APCH. I BELIEVE THE LIGHT ACFT SAW US BECAUSE HE WAS IN A STEEP NOSE DOWN ANGLE OF BANK WHEN HE PASSED BELOW US.