Opposite direction traffic - pilot takeoff into approach traffic.

Attributes
ACN	299891
Time
Date	199503
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ome
State Reference	AK
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff
Flight Plan	VFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	other : unknown
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing : go around
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 2500 flight time type : 500
ASRS Report	299891
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	other personnel other
Qualification	other
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	flight crew : took evasive action none taken : detected after the fact other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

The flight in question was an all cargo departure with multiple stops and scheduled passenger pick ups in 2 villages. As a result of time pressure to meet the passenger pick up schedule, I was attempting to expedite my ground operations and departure. While taxiing, I received the airport advisory from nome radio. Winds were light and variable and all runways were in use. At the time, 2 aircraft were inbound to nome, and 1 other aircraft outbound. The first inbound (type unknown) intended runway 02 and the first outbound, a piper navajo was then back-taxiing for a runway 09 departure. I was planning a runway 27 departure. I believed the second inbound (a ce 207?) was arriving from the east, landing west (runway 27), while he was actually planning runway 09). I completed my runup and held short of runway 27, with the navajo in position for runway 09. The first inbound landed and cleared runway 02, and the navajo began his takeoff roll on runway 09. At this point, the second inbound called '5 mi final,' but did not state which runway. When the departing navajo passed overhead, I taxied onto runway 27 and began an immediate departure. Flight service then broadcast 'confirm you have the aircraft on final.' this call was not prefaced with an 'north-number,' therefore I believed it was for the navajo which had departed eastbound, the second inbound was then on (an approximately) 2 mi final for runway 09, and executed a left 360 degree turn (to the north) for spacing. On climb out, I saw the other aircraft and realized what had actually occurred. I then altered course to the left (south) and passed well clear (greater than 1 mi) from the other aircraft. Although there was no immediate collision hazard, the incident was a clear, although unintentional, violation of proper procedure for which I was entirely responsible. Contributing factors were: undue haste to meet schedule, inappropriate division of attention - ground tasks and flight advisory simultaneously, lack of correct situational awareness, breakdown of proper communications procedure.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC - PLT TKOF INTO APCH TFC.

Narrative: THE FLT IN QUESTION WAS AN ALL CARGO DEP WITH MULTIPLE STOPS AND SCHEDULED PAX PICK UPS IN 2 VILLAGES. AS A RESULT OF TIME PRESSURE TO MEET THE PAX PICK UP SCHEDULE, I WAS ATTEMPTING TO EXPEDITE MY GND OPS AND DEP. WHILE TAXIING, I RECEIVED THE ARPT ADVISORY FROM NOME RADIO. WINDS WERE LIGHT AND VARIABLE AND ALL RWYS WERE IN USE. AT THE TIME, 2 ACFT WERE INBOUND TO NOME, AND 1 OTHER ACFT OUTBOUND. THE FIRST INBOUND (TYPE UNKNOWN) INTENDED RWY 02 AND THE FIRST OUTBOUND, A PIPER NAVAJO WAS THEN BACK-TAXIING FOR A RWY 09 DEP. I WAS PLANNING A RWY 27 DEP. I BELIEVED THE SECOND INBOUND (A CE 207?) WAS ARRIVING FROM THE E, LNDG W (RWY 27), WHILE HE WAS ACTUALLY PLANNING RWY 09). I COMPLETED MY RUNUP AND HELD SHORT OF RWY 27, WITH THE NAVAJO IN POS FOR RWY 09. THE FIRST INBOUND LANDED AND CLRED RWY 02, AND THE NAVAJO BEGAN HIS TKOF ROLL ON RWY 09. AT THIS POINT, THE SECOND INBOUND CALLED '5 MI FINAL,' BUT DID NOT STATE WHICH RWY. WHEN THE DEPARTING NAVAJO PASSED OVERHEAD, I TAXIED ONTO RWY 27 AND BEGAN AN IMMEDIATE DEP. FLT SVC THEN BROADCAST 'CONFIRM YOU HAVE THE ACFT ON FINAL.' THIS CALL WAS NOT PREFACED WITH AN 'N-NUMBER,' THEREFORE I BELIEVED IT WAS FOR THE NAVAJO WHICH HAD DEPARTED EBOUND, THE SECOND INBOUND WAS THEN ON (AN APPROX) 2 MI FINAL FOR RWY 09, AND EXECUTED A L 360 DEG TURN (TO THE N) FOR SPACING. ON CLBOUT, I SAW THE OTHER ACFT AND REALIZED WHAT HAD ACTUALLY OCCURRED. I THEN ALTERED COURSE TO THE L (S) AND PASSED WELL CLR (GREATER THAN 1 MI) FROM THE OTHER ACFT. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO IMMEDIATE COLLISION HAZARD, THE INCIDENT WAS A CLR, ALTHOUGH UNINTENTIONAL, VIOLATION OF PROPER PROC FOR WHICH I WAS ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE: UNDUE HASTE TO MEET SCHEDULE, INAPPROPRIATE DIVISION OF ATTN - GND TASKS AND FLT ADVISORY SIMULTANEOUSLY, LACK OF CORRECT SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, BREAKDOWN OF PROPER COMS PROC.

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.