PRIVATE PLT OF C172 ON VISUAL APCH TO RWY 04 AT ESN HAS MODERATELY CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH ACFT ON APCH TO INTERSECTING RWY 33.

Narrative

ENRTE; I DECIDED TO PRACTICE AN ILS APCH AT EASTON. I INTERCEPTED THE VOR APPROX 8 MI OUT; BUT COULD NOT PICK UP THE ILS FOR RWY 4. AFTER FAILING TO PICK UP THE ILS; I ELECTED TO PERFORM A VISUAL APCH AND TOUCH-AND-GO ON RWY 4. THERE WAS ANOTHER ACFT BEHIND ME ALSO PERFORMING THE ILS RWY 4 WITH A LOW APCH. DURING THE APCH THERE WERE MANY CALLS OVER CTAF FROM ARPTS ACROSS THE REGION; INCLUDING CALLS STEPPING ON OTHER CALLS. WHEN I WAS ON SHORT FINAL; JUST BEFORE THE NUMBERS; JUST AS I GOT A VISUAL ON ANOTHER ACFT; HE ALERTED ON CTAF THAT HE WAS ON SHORT FINAL FOR RWY 33. AT THE TIME HE WAS PROBABLY 1500 FT AT MY 2 O'CLOCK POS; MOVING FROM R TO L. I IMMEDIATELY INITIATED A GAR; BANKING TO THE L (APPROX 15 DEG ROLL). I ADDED FORWARD PRESSURE TO COMPENSATE FOR PROP WASH; BUT I WAS AT 30 DEG FLAPS AND THE STALL WARNING DID GO OFF SLIGHTLY. I DO NOT REMEMBER IF I ADDED R RUDDER. THE OTHER ACFT PERFORMED A GAR AND BANKED SLIGHTLY TO THE R OF RWY 33. WE WERE ABEAM EACH OTHER UNTIL I TURNED TO THE L; CLRED A BANK OF TREES; REDUCED FLAPS AND CLBED TO THE S. AFTER PASSING THE OTHER ACFT PERFORMING THE ILS RWY 4 I TURNED BACK TO THE N. I ELECTED TO CONTINUE FLT TO BALTIMORE. I IDENT 2 PROBS: THE INABILITY OF BOTH PLTS TO DETECT THE IMPENDING CONFLICT EARLIER; AND MY CHOICE TO MANEUVER TO THE L RATHER THAN R. THE INITIAL INCIDENT AROSE BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE COM OVER CTAF. I ONLY MADE 2 CALLS DURING MY APCH; PARTLY BECAUSE THE FREQ WAS BUSY. ALTHOUGH I REMEMBER THE CALLS FROM THE PLT IN THE PATTERN FOR RWY 33; I THOUGHT IT WAS FOR A DIFFERENT ARPT. I WAS PREOCCUPIED WITH WHETHER THE ACFT BEHIND ME ON ILS RWY 4 HAD ME IN SIGHT; AND WHY I COULD NOT PICK UP THE ILS. IN ADDITION; I WAS NOT FORCEFUL IN INSTRUCTING MY PAX ABOUT THE STERILE COCKPIT; AND ALTHOUGH I IGNORED THEIR OCCASIONAL COMMENTS; IT DID ADD ANOTHER DISTR. AFTERWARDS THE OTHER PLT STATED OVER CTAF THAT HE THOUGHT I WAS PERFORMING A LOW APCH; NOT A TOUCH AND GO. I BELIEVE HE CONFUSED ME WITH THE OTHER ACFT ON ILS RWY 4; WHICH SAID IT WAS PERFORMING A LOW APCH. WHEN I RECOGNIZED THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT; THE OTHER ACFT WAS AT MY 2 O'CLOCK POS. DURING THE GAR I INSTINCTIVELY BANKED TO THE L. HOWEVER; SINCE IT WAS TRAVELING R TO L; I SHOULD HAVE BANKED TO THE R. THIS WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF LOW-ALT MANEUVERING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED; REDUCING THE CHANCE OF A STALL/SPIN; AS WELL AS AN ENCOUNTER WITH GND OBSTRUCTIONS. INDEED; THE OTHER ACFT WOULD LIKELY HAVE BEEN CLRED OF MY FLT PATH IF I HAD CONTINUED STRAIGHT. MY PLAN TO AVOID SUCH SITUATIONS IN THE FUTURE IS MORE PRACTICE COMMUNICATING AT UNCTLED FIELDS. SINCE MY HOME ARPT IS CTLED; MY EXPERIENCE IS LIMITED IN COMMUNICATING AT UNCTLED FIELDS. I AM ALSO NOT GOING TO DO AN APCH AT AN UNCTLED FIELD OTHER THAN ON THE ACTIVE RWY UNTIL I HAVE FURTHER TRAINING WITH AN INSTRUCTOR.