Narrative:

Being vectored for landing at eyw runway 27 traffic called at our 1 O'clock position at 1500', inbound to NAS nqx we called the field (eyw) in sight but not traffic. Continued to scan forward and to the right. Approach said aircraft 'south to eyw, headed east'. Approach cleared us for a visibility approach with 2000' restriction. Finally saw both aircraft at our 11 O'clock appearing to be same altitude at 3-4 mi. Called traffic in sight told to switch tower. Had to make rapid descent to avoid what appeared to be a collision course. We were told to switch, they were not on frequency, in my opinion this one had no 'fault' however reliable information was at a premium. Better communication would have helped. A positive handling of the situation by controller could have avoided entire incident and there was absolutely no reasonable explanation as to why 2 airports, so geographically close, were using conflicting runways (exw runway 27, nqx runway 7). Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Contacted the air traffic manager at eyw for information on reporter's concern on different direction of landing at eyw and nqx when they are so close in geographically location. The atm said the airports are approximately six mi apart and quite often the prevailing wind is the opp direction. Each airport has a WX reporting unit to obtain ceiling and wind data. He did say that eyw is located closer to the ocean than nqx and might be affected more by ocean currents than nqx.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT MADE A RAPID DESCENT TO AVOID OPPOSITE DIRECTION TRAFFIC.

Narrative: BEING VECTORED FOR LNDG AT EYW RWY 27 TFC CALLED AT OUR 1 O'CLOCK POS AT 1500', INBND TO NAS NQX WE CALLED THE FIELD (EYW) IN SIGHT BUT NOT TFC. CONTINUED TO SCAN FORWARD AND TO THE R. APCH SAID ACFT 'S TO EYW, HEADED E'. APCH CLRED US FOR A VIS APCH WITH 2000' RESTRICTION. FINALLY SAW BOTH ACFT AT OUR 11 O'CLOCK APPEARING TO BE SAME ALT AT 3-4 MI. CALLED TFC IN SIGHT TOLD TO SWITCH TWR. HAD TO MAKE RAPID DSNT TO AVOID WHAT APPEARED TO BE A COLLISION COURSE. WE WERE TOLD TO SWITCH, THEY WERE NOT ON FREQ, IN MY OPINION THIS ONE HAD NO 'FAULT' HOWEVER RELIABLE INFO WAS AT A PREMIUM. BETTER COM WOULD HAVE HELPED. A POSITIVE HANDLING OF THE SITUATION BY CTLR COULD HAVE AVOIDED ENTIRE INCIDENT AND THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY 2 ARPTS, SO GEOGRAPHICALLY CLOSE, WERE USING CONFLICTING RWYS (EXW RWY 27, NQX RWY 7). CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. CONTACTED THE AIR TFC MGR AT EYW FOR INFO ON RPTR'S CONCERN ON DIFFERENT DIRECTION OF LNDG AT EYW AND NQX WHEN THEY ARE SO CLOSE IN GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCATION. THE ATM SAID THE ARPTS ARE APPROX SIX MI APART AND QUITE OFTEN THE PREVAILING WIND IS THE OPP DIRECTION. EACH ARPT HAS A WX RPTING UNIT TO OBTAIN CEILING AND WIND DATA. HE DID SAY THAT EYW IS LOCATED CLOSER TO THE OCEAN THAN NQX AND MIGHT BE AFFECTED MORE BY OCEAN CURRENTS THAN NQX.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.