Narrative:

Before entering my aircraft I observed an aircraft overhead turning eastbound. Knowing another aircraft was in the vicinity I was extra careful in clearing the traffic pattern for both runways before taxiing to the runway being the wind was light and variable and either runway could have been in use. I made a radio call that I was taxiing for runway 36 and heard no response on the CTAF frequency 122.90. After line up and checklist complete I again called that I was departing runway 36 with direction outbound. I heard another radio key up (carrier only) but no voice as takeoff power was applied. About 4 seconds into the takeoff roll a private aircraft landed over top my aircraft touching down about 200 ft in front of my aircraft. I aborted the takeoff and allowed the private aircraft to clear the runway. I tried to contact the private aircraft again but did not receive a response. With the other private aircraft off the runway. I took off and continued the flight. There are a number of factors that I believe accumulated to allow this event. First of all, I observed the private aircraft proceed eastbound after circling overhead, then landed over top my aircraft on runway 36. This means he had to fly a right hand pattern which is nonstandard for this airport. The second factor is that the trees around the ramp on this airport block the view of an aircraft on final on either runway. In order to clear the final approach of either runway, an aircraft taxiing from the ramp has to be on the runway to see past the trees. This is even worse for runway 36 if an aircraft is to the right of the final approach course or on a right hand pattern. The last factor, the one I believe contributed the most to this incident, has to do with the recent change in the CTAF. The published frequency just switched to 122.9, which I was using. About 50 percent of the pilots operating into this airport are still using 122.8, the old CTAF. I don't know if the other aircraft was using this frequency or had an inoperable transmitter because radio contact was never established. It is of my opinion that the frequency should have been left 122.8. In this area we don't have a problem with frequency congestion and in fact being able to hear what is going on at the airports around us adds to the level of safety. Most of the pilots operating into these airports are very helpful with providing information on WX, runway conditions and other operating information in an area of rural alaska where this information is hard to get. Knowing who is operating at what airport allows us to know who we will meet en route even if we are landing at another airport. I think the FAA should ask for public input on such frequency changes and somehow make a change more obvious than just showing up on a sectional chart or airport directory.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT AS ONE SMA LANDS ON OCCUPIED RWY OVER ANOTHER.

Narrative: BEFORE ENTERING MY ACFT I OBSERVED AN ACFT OVERHEAD TURNING EBOUND. KNOWING ANOTHER ACFT WAS IN THE VICINITY I WAS EXTRA CAREFUL IN CLRING THE TFC PATTERN FOR BOTH RWYS BEFORE TAXIING TO THE RWY BEING THE WIND WAS LIGHT AND VARIABLE AND EITHER RWY COULD HAVE BEEN IN USE. I MADE A RADIO CALL THAT I WAS TAXIING FOR RWY 36 AND HEARD NO RESPONSE ON THE CTAF FREQ 122.90. AFTER LINE UP AND CHKLIST COMPLETE I AGAIN CALLED THAT I WAS DEPARTING RWY 36 WITH DIRECTION OUTBOUND. I HEARD ANOTHER RADIO KEY UP (CARRIER ONLY) BUT NO VOICE AS TKOF PWR WAS APPLIED. ABOUT 4 SECONDS INTO THE TKOF ROLL A PRIVATE ACFT LANDED OVER TOP MY ACFT TOUCHING DOWN ABOUT 200 FT IN FRONT OF MY ACFT. I ABORTED THE TKOF AND ALLOWED THE PRIVATE ACFT TO CLR THE RWY. I TRIED TO CONTACT THE PRIVATE ACFT AGAIN BUT DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE. WITH THE OTHER PRIVATE ACFT OFF THE RWY. I TOOK OFF AND CONTINUED THE FLT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT I BELIEVE ACCUMULATED TO ALLOW THIS EVENT. FIRST OF ALL, I OBSERVED THE PRIVATE ACFT PROCEED EBOUND AFTER CIRCLING OVERHEAD, THEN LANDED OVER TOP MY ACFT ON RWY 36. THIS MEANS HE HAD TO FLY A R HAND PATTERN WHICH IS NONSTANDARD FOR THIS ARPT. THE SECOND FACTOR IS THAT THE TREES AROUND THE RAMP ON THIS ARPT BLOCK THE VIEW OF AN ACFT ON FINAL ON EITHER RWY. IN ORDER TO CLR THE FINAL APCH OF EITHER RWY, AN ACFT TAXIING FROM THE RAMP HAS TO BE ON THE RWY TO SEE PAST THE TREES. THIS IS EVEN WORSE FOR RWY 36 IF AN ACFT IS TO THE R OF THE FINAL APCH COURSE OR ON A R HAND PATTERN. THE LAST FACTOR, THE ONE I BELIEVE CONTRIBUTED THE MOST TO THIS INCIDENT, HAS TO DO WITH THE RECENT CHANGE IN THE CTAF. THE PUBLISHED FREQ JUST SWITCHED TO 122.9, WHICH I WAS USING. ABOUT 50 PERCENT OF THE PLTS OPERATING INTO THIS ARPT ARE STILL USING 122.8, THE OLD CTAF. I DON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER ACFT WAS USING THIS FREQ OR HAD AN INOPERABLE XMITTER BECAUSE RADIO CONTACT WAS NEVER ESTABLISHED. IT IS OF MY OPINION THAT THE FREQ SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT 122.8. IN THIS AREA WE DON'T HAVE A PROB WITH FREQ CONGESTION AND IN FACT BEING ABLE TO HEAR WHAT IS GOING ON AT THE ARPTS AROUND US ADDS TO THE LEVEL OF SAFETY. MOST OF THE PLTS OPERATING INTO THESE ARPTS ARE VERY HELPFUL WITH PROVIDING INFO ON WX, RWY CONDITIONS AND OTHER OPERATING INFO IN AN AREA OF RURAL ALASKA WHERE THIS INFO IS HARD TO GET. KNOWING WHO IS OPERATING AT WHAT ARPT ALLOWS US TO KNOW WHO WE WILL MEET ENRTE EVEN IF WE ARE LNDG AT ANOTHER ARPT. I THINK THE FAA SHOULD ASK FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON SUCH FREQ CHANGES AND SOMEHOW MAKE A CHANGE MORE OBVIOUS THAN JUST SHOWING UP ON A SECTIONAL CHART OR ARPT DIRECTORY.

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.