Narrative:

Small transport X was cleared to land on runway 6 at barnstable municipal airport. After landing and clearing runway 6 on taxiway india, I heard the tower (local) instruct company to 'stay with me to the gate!' this was a common phrase all winter long. I was informed later that I was instructed to go around which I did not hear. I assumed that I was to 'stay with the tower (local) to the gate. As I was taxiing to the gate, the taxiway crossed runway 33. I entered runway 33 halfway and noticed another company small transport Y had landed. Had I and the company pilot not taken evasive action we would have crashed. I immediately turned my aircraft to the right while braking hard to avoid collision and the company pilot went to his left staying on the runway also avoiding collision. The female controller, who handled local came down to company operations for a conference. During which at this time it was revealed that she and the person doing ground were arguing about when an aircraft lands it should be turned over to ground and not stay with local. Another point, from taxiway india where I had turned off from runway 6 on to charlie taxiway to the intersection of charlie and runway 33 takes approximately 45 seconds to 1 min. The local controller informed me that the ground controller was 'screaming' on the ground frequency, which I was not on ground, I was still on tower. Why didn't the ground controller inform local that I was not communicating with him? Why didn't local tell me to hold my position? I feel if the controllers worked together rather than arguing this type of situation could be avoided.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMT X UNAUTH RWY ENTRY HAD LTSS FROM SMT Y LNDG. EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN. PLTDEV.

Narrative: SMT X WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 6 AT BARNSTABLE MUNICIPAL ARPT. AFTER LNDG AND CLRING RWY 6 ON TXWY INDIA, I HEARD THE TWR (LCL) INSTRUCT COMPANY TO 'STAY WITH ME TO THE GATE!' THIS WAS A COMMON PHRASE ALL WINTER LONG. I WAS INFORMED LATER THAT I WAS INSTRUCTED TO GAR WHICH I DID NOT HEAR. I ASSUMED THAT I WAS TO 'STAY WITH THE TWR (LCL) TO THE GATE. AS I WAS TAXIING TO THE GATE, THE TXWY CROSSED RWY 33. I ENTERED RWY 33 HALFWAY AND NOTICED ANOTHER COMPANY SMT Y HAD LANDED. HAD I AND THE COMPANY PLT NOT TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION WE WOULD HAVE CRASHED. I IMMEDIATELY TURNED MY ACFT TO THE R WHILE BRAKING HARD TO AVOID COLLISION AND THE COMPANY PLT WENT TO HIS L STAYING ON THE RWY ALSO AVOIDING COLLISION. THE FEMALE CTLR, WHO HANDLED LCL CAME DOWN TO COMPANY OPS FOR A CONFERENCE. DURING WHICH AT THIS TIME IT WAS REVEALED THAT SHE AND THE PERSON DOING GND WERE ARGUING ABOUT WHEN AN ACFT LANDS IT SHOULD BE TURNED OVER TO GND AND NOT STAY WITH LCL. ANOTHER POINT, FROM TXWY INDIA WHERE I HAD TURNED OFF FROM RWY 6 ON TO CHARLIE TXWY TO THE INTXN OF CHARLIE AND RWY 33 TAKES APPROX 45 SECONDS TO 1 MIN. THE LCL CTLR INFORMED ME THAT THE GND CTLR WAS 'SCREAMING' ON THE GND FREQ, WHICH I WAS NOT ON GND, I WAS STILL ON TWR. WHY DIDN'T THE GND CTLR INFORM LCL THAT I WAS NOT COMMUNICATING WITH HIM? WHY DIDN'T LCL TELL ME TO HOLD MY POS? I FEEL IF THE CTLRS WORKED TOGETHER RATHER THAN ARGUING THIS TYPE OF SIT COULD BE AVOIDED.

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.