PF STRAIGHT IN APCH AT NON TWR ARPT BELIEVES INSTRUCTOR PLT DELIBERATELY PROVOKED A GAR.

Narrative

NARRATIVE-CHAIN OF EVENTS/SIT: 15.1 HOW THE SIT AROSE: THE SIT BEGAN WHILE ON A LONG STRAIGHT-IN APCH TO THE RWY 17 AT CORONADO ARPT (4AC). PRIOR TO A 7-8 MI FINAL OUR ACFT MONITORED THE ARPT UNICOM FOR TFC AND ACTIVE RWY. AT THAT TIME WE HEARD AN ACFT (WE BELIEVE A CITABRIA ANNOUNCED THEY WERE 'DOWN-WIND RWY 17 TOUCH AND GO.' SHORTLY AFTER; WE ANNOUNCED A STRAIGHT IN APCH FROM OUR N POS (ABOUT 5-7 MI NOW) AND THAT WE WOULD 'SEQUENCE' OR ACCOMMODATE ANY TFC. THE CITABRIA DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE OUR XMISSIONS. NEXT THE CITABRIA ANNOUNCED BASE TO RWY 17. WE THEN ACCESSED THAT WE WOULD BE FOLLOWING THE CITABRIA TO RWY 17 AND XMITTED AS SUCH. NEXT WE ASKED IF THE CITABRIA WOULD EXPEDITE OFF ACTIVE RWY TO ALLOW OUR LNDG. NO RESPONSE. 15.2 CONTRIBUTING FACTOR: THE CITABRIA LANDED; CONTINUED A LONG AND SLOW TAXI; NO COM. 15.3 HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED: SEEING THIS AND OUR PROX TO THRESHOLD; WE FIRST BEGAN SLOW 'S' TURNS TO ALLOW SPACING AND TIME TO ALLOW THE CITABRIA REASONABLE TIME TO LAND AND TO EXIT THE ACTIVE RWY. THE CITABRIA WAS PURPOSEFULLY USING A DELAYING TACTIC THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO NOT ABORT OUR LNDG SO THERE WOULD BE NO CONFLICT ON THE RWY. WE WERE ABOUT 1-1 1/2 MI FROM THRESHOLD. 15.4 CORRECTIVE ACTION: KNOWING THAT WE HAD HEARD OTHER TFC EARLIER CALLING IN FROM THE W; 1 OR 2 ACFT (20 MI OUT) AND NOT KNOWING IF THE CITABRIA MIGHT DECIDE TO MAKE A TKOF WE TURNED R INSTEAD OF EXECUTING A CLB OVER THE RWY; POSSIBLY CONFLICTING WITH A TKOF BY THE CITABRIA. THE TURN TO THE R (AND PER THE FAR REGARDING PATTERNS AT UNCTLED ARPTS) WOULD TAKE US TO THE W TO IDENT AND AVOID ANY TFC. WE CONTINUED TO TURN R TO GET A VISUAL ON THE SIT AND SEE IF ALL WAS OK (NO CONFLICTING TFC) AND THEN CONTINUED TO TURN R TO THE FINAL TO RWY 17. LANDED WITH NO CONFLICT OR UNSAFE SIT! THE FLT INSTRUCTOR IN CITABRIA HAS A PERSONAL 'LOATHING' FOR 'STRAIGHT-IN' APCHS AND HAS NO CONSIDERATION FOR ADVISORY CIRCULAR #90-66A! 15.6 SUMMATION: THIS SIT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO ANY UNSAFE MANEUVERS OR ACFT CONFLICT. HOWEVER; SINCE WE WERE ON A LONG STRAIGHT-IN FINAL; INITIALLY LOWER THAN THE CITABRIA; COMMITTED TO THE LNDG; YOU COULD MAKE A CASE FOR RECKLESS OP (FAR 91.13 PARA A) BY THE CITABRIA IN THAT HE PURPOSELY CONTINUED TO CUT US OFF! BEING THE LOWER ACFT INITIALLY AND ON FINAL WOULD HAVE INDICATED THAT WE TECHNICALLY HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY; AS I THINK THE FAR'S INDICATE. OUR EVASIVE ACTION AVOIDED ANY FURTHER DANGER TO OUR ACFT! THIS DID NOT RESULT IN ANY CLOSE PROX (CONFLICT) TO ANOTHER ACFT. IT RESULTED IN INCONSIDERATION BY AN FLT INSTRUCTOR (SO CALLED PROFESSIONAL!).