Narrative:

We were on the first leg of a return trip to massachusetts, on IFR flight plan to london, ky. Approach told us to prepare for VOR approach for runway 05. When we were inbound on final approach, we changed frequencys to CTAF (FSS 124.6 I think). The FSS gave us advisories: winds 110/5, favoring runway 05, so landed straight-in 05, no traffic. About 20 seconds later we heard another aircraft advise FSS that he was in the pattern. We broke out of the clouds well above mins, however the haze was pretty bad, maybe 4 or 5 mi. As we approached the end of the runway, 500 AGL, we announced that we were on final for 05 at london. Immediately afterward, we heard another aircraft announcing short final for 23 at london. We immediately executed (and announced) a go around, left turn and climb toward the VOR. The ensuing conversation with the other aircraft revealed that he had been in pattern for last hour doing touch and goes on runway 23 and saw no reason to change to 05, even though the winds favored (just barely) 05. Situation resolved itself when we saw him takeoff for another touch and go. We circled on the opposite side of airport and entered crosswind for runway 23 and subsequently landed. Later, we spoke to the FSS controller, who apologized for the confusion. Discussing this after the fact, some of the factors contributing to the incident include: low ceiling and low visibility (we didn't see the other aircraft until short final). Directive from FSS... Which was actually only an advisory. Other aircraft not following standard landing procedures. While there is no far that states that you must land on runway that wind favors, this is surely an assumption that most pilots (including us) make. Inadequate radio procedure. I don't remember hearing a downwind or base call from the other aircraft announcing his intentions. And, I suppose, we should have made it clear that a 'VOR approach to 05 ' meant that we would be landing on 05 (not all VFR pilots are familiar with IFR terminology and I do think the other guy was a student). All in all, I don't think either of us were at fault. But there's no question that I'm going to change my procedures slightly to include 'long final runway xx' when announcing IFR approachs at uncontrolled airports where VFR traffic might be. Also, I got to remember that FSS advisories are just that: advisories that may not reflect actual traffic at that time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA ON IFR PLAN RECEIVED FSS WIND AND RWY ADVISORY AND ATTEMPTED A STRAIGHT IN APCH AND LNDG WHEN ANOTHER SMA WAS OBSERVED LNDG RWY OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

Narrative: WE WERE ON THE FIRST LEG OF A RETURN TRIP TO MASSACHUSETTS, ON IFR FLT PLAN TO LONDON, KY. APCH TOLD US TO PREPARE FOR VOR APCH FOR RWY 05. WHEN WE WERE INBOUND ON FINAL APCH, WE CHANGED FREQS TO CTAF (FSS 124.6 I THINK). THE FSS GAVE US ADVISORIES: WINDS 110/5, FAVORING RWY 05, SO LANDED STRAIGHT-IN 05, NO TFC. ABOUT 20 SECONDS LATER WE HEARD ANOTHER ACFT ADVISE FSS THAT HE WAS IN THE PATTERN. WE BROKE OUT OF THE CLOUDS WELL ABOVE MINS, HOWEVER THE HAZE WAS PRETTY BAD, MAYBE 4 OR 5 MI. AS WE APCHED THE END OF THE RWY, 500 AGL, WE ANNOUNCED THAT WE WERE ON FINAL FOR 05 AT LONDON. IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD, WE HEARD ANOTHER ACFT ANNOUNCING SHORT FINAL FOR 23 AT LONDON. WE IMMEDIATELY EXECUTED (AND ANNOUNCED) A GAR, L TURN AND CLB TOWARD THE VOR. THE ENSUING CONVERSATION WITH THE OTHER ACFT REVEALED THAT HE HAD BEEN IN PATTERN FOR LAST HR DOING TOUCH AND GOES ON RWY 23 AND SAW NO REASON TO CHANGE TO 05, EVEN THOUGH THE WINDS FAVORED (JUST BARELY) 05. SITUATION RESOLVED ITSELF WHEN WE SAW HIM TKOF FOR ANOTHER TOUCH AND GO. WE CIRCLED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF ARPT AND ENTERED XWIND FOR RWY 23 AND SUBSEQUENTLY LANDED. LATER, WE SPOKE TO THE FSS CTLR, WHO APOLOGIZED FOR THE CONFUSION. DISCUSSING THIS AFTER THE FACT, SOME OF THE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE INCIDENT INCLUDE: LOW CEILING AND LOW VISIBILITY (WE DIDN'T SEE THE OTHER ACFT UNTIL SHORT FINAL). DIRECTIVE FROM FSS... WHICH WAS ACTUALLY ONLY AN ADVISORY. OTHER ACFT NOT FOLLOWING STANDARD LNDG PROCS. WHILE THERE IS NO FAR THAT STATES THAT YOU MUST LAND ON RWY THAT WIND FAVORS, THIS IS SURELY AN ASSUMPTION THAT MOST PLTS (INCLUDING US) MAKE. INADEQUATE RADIO PROC. I DON'T REMEMBER HEARING A DOWNWIND OR BASE CALL FROM THE OTHER ACFT ANNOUNCING HIS INTENTIONS. AND, I SUPPOSE, WE SHOULD HAVE MADE IT CLR THAT A 'VOR APCH TO 05 ' MEANT THAT WE WOULD BE LNDG ON 05 (NOT ALL VFR PLTS ARE FAMILIAR WITH IFR TERMINOLOGY AND I DO THINK THE OTHER GUY WAS A STUDENT). ALL IN ALL, I DON'T THINK EITHER OF US WERE AT FAULT. BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT I'M GOING TO CHANGE MY PROCS SLIGHTLY TO INCLUDE 'LONG FINAL RWY XX' WHEN ANNOUNCING IFR APCHS AT UNCTLED ARPTS WHERE VFR TFC MIGHT BE. ALSO, I GOT TO REMEMBER THAT FSS ADVISORIES ARE JUST THAT: ADVISORIES THAT MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL TFC AT THAT TIME.

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.