Narrative:

I was acting as safety pilot, while the PF was practicing a localizer 34 approach at arlington. The AWOS reported the wind as 180 at 7 so runway 16 was active. The PF had announced 'waton inbound for low approach runway 34.' at about 3 mi final, another airplane announced 'turning right base for runway 16.' I then announced we were on 3 mi final and asked the other aircraft if they were full stop. The reply was that they were touch and go, so I told them that we would sidestep to the west. (I had them in sight, and we would be abeam the runway before they completed their touch and go). At this time, another voice announced 'a flight of 2 rv-6's was taking off on runway 34!' this didn't make any sense since 16 was active, but I looked for the rv-6's on 34, they weren't there. Then I looked for them on 16, they weren't there either. We sidestepped to the west of 34, and just as the PF started to climb for a missed approach, I saw the lead RV6 at 1 O'clock, and a 750 ft. Although we were 1500 ft to 2000 ft to the west of the rvg, I considered this too close for safety especially when I did not have that aircraft in sight sooner. Announcing takeoff on the wrong runway was a contributing factor, but I should have asked for confirmation, so we could have sidestepped further to the west, and sooner.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNCTLED ARPT TFC PATTERN CONFLICT.

Narrative: I WAS ACTING AS SAFETY PLT, WHILE THE PF WAS PRACTICING A LOC 34 APCH AT ARLINGTON. THE AWOS RPTED THE WIND AS 180 AT 7 SO RWY 16 WAS ACTIVE. THE PF HAD ANNOUNCED 'WATON INBOUND FOR LOW APCH RWY 34.' AT ABOUT 3 MI FINAL, ANOTHER AIRPLANE ANNOUNCED 'TURNING R BASE FOR RWY 16.' I THEN ANNOUNCED WE WERE ON 3 MI FINAL AND ASKED THE OTHER ACFT IF THEY WERE FULL STOP. THE REPLY WAS THAT THEY WERE TOUCH AND GO, SO I TOLD THEM THAT WE WOULD SIDESTEP TO THE W. (I HAD THEM IN SIGHT, AND WE WOULD BE ABEAM THE RWY BEFORE THEY COMPLETED THEIR TOUCH AND GO). AT THIS TIME, ANOTHER VOICE ANNOUNCED 'A FLT OF 2 RV-6'S WAS TAKING OFF ON RWY 34!' THIS DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE SINCE 16 WAS ACTIVE, BUT I LOOKED FOR THE RV-6'S ON 34, THEY WEREN'T THERE. THEN I LOOKED FOR THEM ON 16, THEY WEREN'T THERE EITHER. WE SIDESTEPPED TO THE W OF 34, AND JUST AS THE PF STARTED TO CLB FOR A MISSED APCH, I SAW THE LEAD RV6 AT 1 O'CLOCK, AND A 750 FT. ALTHOUGH WE WERE 1500 FT TO 2000 FT TO THE W OF THE RVG, I CONSIDERED THIS TOO CLOSE FOR SAFETY ESPECIALLY WHEN I DID NOT HAVE THAT ACFT IN SIGHT SOONER. ANNOUNCING TKOF ON THE WRONG RWY WAS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR, BUT I SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR CONFIRMATION, SO WE COULD HAVE SIDESTEPPED FURTHER TO THE W, AND SOONER.

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.