Narrative:

After landing on runway 10 at rdm, while slowing to a stop, an small aircraft announced he was departing off of runway 10 at rdm. We announced we were back-taxiing (this in order to exit the runway sooner as the exit behind us was closer than the exit at the end of the runway). FSS also called the aircraft (the sme) and advised him not to take off as there was still an aircraft on the runway--namely, us. As we turned and began taxiing back on runway 10 we watched for the small aircraft in case he didn't hear us or FSS. We heard no response from him. The runway has a rise in its middle which makes it impossible to see an aircraft at the other end. The runway is also long enough for an small aircraft to depart on only 1/2 of the runway. We continued our taxi and as the other end of the runway came into sight, we could see small aircraft on takeoff roll. There was no imminent conflict between our 2 aircraft unless his engine failed at 100'. He passed overhead about 200-300'. I later talked ot the pilot by radio and he claimed he did not hear out call nor that of FSS, nor did he know there was another aircraft on the runway when he departed. FSS spoke to me by radio and assured me that the pilot had been spoken to about the incident and that he was remorseful. I didn't pursue the matter further. That pilot should have maintained a more alert watch on the CTAF, and he should have visually affirmed that the aircraft that just landed (our aircraft) was clear of the runway. There was nothing we could do as any exit we chose could not have got us off the runway before small aircraft took off.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT AS SMA OVERFLIES LTT BACK-TAXIING ON SAME RWY.

Narrative: AFTER LNDG ON RWY 10 AT RDM, WHILE SLOWING TO A STOP, AN SMA ANNOUNCED HE WAS DEPARTING OFF OF RWY 10 AT RDM. WE ANNOUNCED WE WERE BACK-TAXIING (THIS IN ORDER TO EXIT THE RWY SOONER AS THE EXIT BEHIND US WAS CLOSER THAN THE EXIT AT THE END OF THE RWY). FSS ALSO CALLED THE ACFT (THE SME) AND ADVISED HIM NOT TO TAKE OFF AS THERE WAS STILL AN ACFT ON THE RWY--NAMELY, US. AS WE TURNED AND BEGAN TAXIING BACK ON RWY 10 WE WATCHED FOR THE SMA IN CASE HE DIDN'T HEAR US OR FSS. WE HEARD NO RESPONSE FROM HIM. THE RWY HAS A RISE IN ITS MIDDLE WHICH MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE AN ACFT AT THE OTHER END. THE RWY IS ALSO LONG ENOUGH FOR AN SMA TO DEPART ON ONLY 1/2 OF THE RWY. WE CONTINUED OUR TAXI AND AS THE OTHER END OF THE RWY CAME INTO SIGHT, WE COULD SEE SMA ON TKOF ROLL. THERE WAS NO IMMINENT CONFLICT BTWN OUR 2 ACFT UNLESS HIS ENG FAILED AT 100'. HE PASSED OVERHEAD ABOUT 200-300'. I LATER TALKED OT THE PLT BY RADIO AND HE CLAIMED HE DID NOT HEAR OUT CALL NOR THAT OF FSS, NOR DID HE KNOW THERE WAS ANOTHER ACFT ON THE RWY WHEN HE DEPARTED. FSS SPOKE TO ME BY RADIO AND ASSURED ME THAT THE PLT HAD BEEN SPOKEN TO ABOUT THE INCIDENT AND THAT HE WAS REMORSEFUL. I DIDN'T PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER. THAT PLT SHOULD HAVE MAINTAINED A MORE ALERT WATCH ON THE CTAF, AND HE SHOULD HAVE VISUALLY AFFIRMED THAT THE ACFT THAT JUST LANDED (OUR ACFT) WAS CLR OF THE RWY. THERE WAS NOTHING WE COULD DO AS ANY EXIT WE CHOSE COULD NOT HAVE GOT US OFF THE RWY BEFORE SMA TOOK OFF.

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.