Narrative:

Winds at brd were variable from 270 to 310 degrees at about 15 KTS, favoring runway 23 for larger aircraft but runway 30 for light aircraft. We announced on CTAF/unicom (frequency 122.7) that we were taxiing for departure on runway 23, with no response from any traffic in the area. While on the ground short of runway 23, we received our IFR clearance from msp center. No traffic was observed, but we announced our intentions on CTAF/unicom (again with no response), then taxied onto runway 23 and departed. While on the takeoff roll we heard a radio query from a single engine small aircraft that had aborted his simultaneous takeoff on runway 30. We were already well above our V1 decision speed by that time, so we continued our departure. He had come to a stop about 1/4 mi short of the 12/30 and 05/23 runway intersection. We xed the runway intersection at about 100-200' AGL. No evasive action was taken or required on our part. The end of runway 30 is obscured by trees and is not visible from the end of runway 23. The small aircraft pilot stated to unicom that he had made a departure announcement, but we never heard it. Perhaps he made his announcement while I, as PNF, was talking on communication #2 with company (for weight and balance closeout) or with msp center (for IFR clearance). In either case, the PF should have heard him on communication #1 (CTAF/unicom), which was continuously monitored. Why the small aircraft pilot didn't say anything during the 15-20 seconds it took us to taxi onto the runway and complete our checklist is unknown. Factors which may have contributed to reduced vigilance on our part were: fatigue caused by the previous six legs of a ten leg day (8.0 hours flying, 13.4 hours on duty with no break for meals, etc); and previous ground delays which had put us behind schedule.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE PROX ACR-MDT GA-SMA ON TKOF FROM MULTIPLE INTERSECTING RWYS AT NON TWR ARPT UNICOM CTAF.

Narrative: WINDS AT BRD WERE VARIABLE FROM 270 TO 310 DEGS AT ABOUT 15 KTS, FAVORING RWY 23 FOR LARGER ACFT BUT RWY 30 FOR LIGHT ACFT. WE ANNOUNCED ON CTAF/UNICOM (FREQ 122.7) THAT WE WERE TAXIING FOR DEP ON RWY 23, WITH NO RESPONSE FROM ANY TFC IN THE AREA. WHILE ON THE GND SHORT OF RWY 23, WE RECEIVED OUR IFR CLRNC FROM MSP CTR. NO TFC WAS OBSERVED, BUT WE ANNOUNCED OUR INTENTIONS ON CTAF/UNICOM (AGAIN WITH NO RESPONSE), THEN TAXIED ONTO RWY 23 AND DEPARTED. WHILE ON THE TKOF ROLL WE HEARD A RADIO QUERY FROM A SINGLE ENG SMA THAT HAD ABORTED HIS SIMULTANEOUS TKOF ON RWY 30. WE WERE ALREADY WELL ABOVE OUR V1 DECISION SPD BY THAT TIME, SO WE CONTINUED OUR DEP. HE HAD COME TO A STOP ABOUT 1/4 MI SHORT OF THE 12/30 AND 05/23 RWY INTXN. WE XED THE RWY INTXN AT ABOUT 100-200' AGL. NO EVASIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN OR REQUIRED ON OUR PART. THE END OF RWY 30 IS OBSCURED BY TREES AND IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE END OF RWY 23. THE SMA PLT STATED TO UNICOM THAT HE HAD MADE A DEP ANNOUNCEMENT, BUT WE NEVER HEARD IT. PERHAPS HE MADE HIS ANNOUNCEMENT WHILE I, AS PNF, WAS TALKING ON COM #2 WITH COMPANY (FOR WEIGHT AND BALANCE CLOSEOUT) OR WITH MSP CTR (FOR IFR CLRNC). IN EITHER CASE, THE PF SHOULD HAVE HEARD HIM ON COM #1 (CTAF/UNICOM), WHICH WAS CONTINUOUSLY MONITORED. WHY THE SMA PLT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING DURING THE 15-20 SECS IT TOOK US TO TAXI ONTO THE RWY AND COMPLETE OUR CHKLIST IS UNKNOWN. FACTORS WHICH MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO REDUCED VIGILANCE ON OUR PART WERE: FATIGUE CAUSED BY THE PREVIOUS SIX LEGS OF A TEN LEG DAY (8.0 HRS FLYING, 13.4 HRS ON DUTY WITH NO BREAK FOR MEALS, ETC); AND PREVIOUS GND DELAYS WHICH HAD PUT US BEHIND SCHEDULE.

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.