Narrative:

In the area of the northeast where I fly, there are numerous small airports but only a few unicom frequencys. As a result, one can hear communications at as many as 8 or 10 different airports, some as many as 200 mi away, while flying at or near traffic pattern altitude. Some of the communications are even in french. Recently, I had a near disaster when approaching another small, uncontrolled field. The windsock was perpendicular to the runway and nobody was monitoring unicom, so the choice of runway was a toss up. I picked the uphill approach and on downwind for 36 heard somebody call, 'entering downwind for 18,' no airport named. I transmitted several times requesting anybody in the vicinity of lyndonville airport to say again their position and their intentions. I received no answer. As I continued my approach I looked for an aircraft on the pattern to 18 and couldn't spot one. Nevertheless, just after I called 'base for 36,' somebody called 'base for 18.' several ft above T/D I spotted an aircraft coming directly at me on short final. Luckily, he spotted me too. He veered off and I continued my landing. 2 lessons to be learned from this. One is that when you call your intentions you should state what airport you are at because no one knows whether you are at colebrook, lyndonville or cape cod. The other is that when I had any doubt as to whether or not the other aircraft was approaching head on I should have circled until I was certain. Obviously, I could hear him. Obviously he couldn't hear me. He didn't come back to land so I don't know if it was my transmitter or his receiver that was off, but I did check my transmitter later and it was working. I know this backwoods stuff bores the big time jet jockeys, but I think it is a significant problem in communications at uncontrolled airports where most midairs occur. I think you should reinforce the need for identifying the intended field in unicom communications. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: determined the passing distance of the 2 aircraft when opp direction aircraft made go around. Also ascertained types of aircraft involved and license and flying time of reporter. Suggested reporter try to get AOPA to put reminder in publication of aim requirement to state name of airport at start and finish of xmissions at non tower airports. Reporter felt both pilots saw conflict early enough not to classify incident as near midair collision. Suspects other aircraft receiver not operating.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CONFLICT AIRBORNE BETWEEN 2 SMA ON APCH RWY FROM OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS AT NON TWR ARPT.

Narrative: IN THE AREA OF THE NE WHERE I FLY, THERE ARE NUMEROUS SMALL ARPTS BUT ONLY A FEW UNICOM FREQS. AS A RESULT, ONE CAN HEAR COMS AT AS MANY AS 8 OR 10 DIFFERENT ARPTS, SOME AS MANY AS 200 MI AWAY, WHILE FLYING AT OR NEAR TFC PATTERN ALT. SOME OF THE COMS ARE EVEN IN FRENCH. RECENTLY, I HAD A NEAR DISASTER WHEN APCHING ANOTHER SMALL, UNCONTROLLED FIELD. THE WINDSOCK WAS PERPENDICULAR TO THE RWY AND NOBODY WAS MONITORING UNICOM, SO THE CHOICE OF RWY WAS A TOSS UP. I PICKED THE UPHILL APCH AND ON DOWNWIND FOR 36 HEARD SOMEBODY CALL, 'ENTERING DOWNWIND FOR 18,' NO ARPT NAMED. I XMITTED SEVERAL TIMES REQUESTING ANYBODY IN THE VICINITY OF LYNDONVILLE ARPT TO SAY AGAIN THEIR POS AND THEIR INTENTIONS. I RECEIVED NO ANSWER. AS I CONTINUED MY APCH I LOOKED FOR AN ACFT ON THE PATTERN TO 18 AND COULDN'T SPOT ONE. NEVERTHELESS, JUST AFTER I CALLED 'BASE FOR 36,' SOMEBODY CALLED 'BASE FOR 18.' SEVERAL FT ABOVE T/D I SPOTTED AN ACFT COMING DIRECTLY AT ME ON SHORT FINAL. LUCKILY, HE SPOTTED ME TOO. HE VEERED OFF AND I CONTINUED MY LNDG. 2 LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THIS. ONE IS THAT WHEN YOU CALL YOUR INTENTIONS YOU SHOULD STATE WHAT ARPT YOU ARE AT BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS WHETHER YOU ARE AT COLEBROOK, LYNDONVILLE OR CAPE COD. THE OTHER IS THAT WHEN I HAD ANY DOUBT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER ACFT WAS APCHING HEAD ON I SHOULD HAVE CIRCLED UNTIL I WAS CERTAIN. OBVIOUSLY, I COULD HEAR HIM. OBVIOUSLY HE COULDN'T HEAR ME. HE DIDN'T COME BACK TO LAND SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS MY XMITTER OR HIS RECEIVER THAT WAS OFF, BUT I DID CHK MY XMITTER LATER AND IT WAS WORKING. I KNOW THIS BACKWOODS STUFF BORES THE BIG TIME JET JOCKEYS, BUT I THINK IT IS A SIGNIFICANT PROB IN COMS AT UNCONTROLLED ARPTS WHERE MOST MIDAIRS OCCUR. I THINK YOU SHOULD REINFORCE THE NEED FOR IDENTIFYING THE INTENDED FIELD IN UNICOM COMS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: DETERMINED THE PASSING DISTANCE OF THE 2 ACFT WHEN OPP DIRECTION ACFT MADE GAR. ALSO ASCERTAINED TYPES OF ACFT INVOLVED AND LICENSE AND FLYING TIME OF RPTR. SUGGESTED RPTR TRY TO GET AOPA TO PUT REMINDER IN PUBLICATION OF AIM REQUIREMENT TO STATE NAME OF ARPT AT START AND FINISH OF XMISSIONS AT NON TWR ARPTS. RPTR FELT BOTH PLTS SAW CONFLICT EARLY ENOUGH NOT TO CLASSIFY INCIDENT AS NMAC. SUSPECTS OTHER ACFT RECEIVER NOT OPERATING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.