Narrative:

Response to allegations -- failing to respond to radio xmissions upon approach to sheridan airport resulting in a near miss, aborted landing, and landing on a closed runway. WX: visibility greater than 50 mi. Wind: calm. The following is a depiction of the last 20 mi of the flight: my first call was made over lake desmitt on 123.0 and responded to by an unidented aircraft asking for my location, only. Second call was to unicom 123.0 for active runway and field advisory -- no answer. Third call was to sheridan traffic -- no answer. Fourth call was to sheridan traffic, turning left base -- again no response. Fifth call was to sheridan traffic to notify landing on runway 31 -- no response. I have been flying in and out of sheridan twice a yr for over 20 yrs and am very familiar with its runways, and the area. Calling for runway 31 instead of runway 32 was a mistake borne out of habit from landing when runway 31 was an active runway. At no time did I attempt to land on runway 31. At no time during approach or subsequent landing, did I, or my passenger, make visual contact with any other aircraft. Why, if both pilots were monitoring 123.0, did they claim I was not transmitting when the first call over the lake was answered and upon landing the FBO had confirmed my calls, though did not respond? Why was I accused of landing on the wrong runway if the accusing pilots had not heard my xmissions calling to land on runway 31 and why did they not warn me, prior to my landing, that runway 31 was closed? Why did the pilots fail to contact me to get my intentions prior to landing if a near miss or aborted landing had occurred, yet had time to notify the emergency vehicle on a frequency other than 123.0? The first transmission heard from the 2 pilots was after I was on the taxiway. This was a plane-to-plane transmission between the accusing pilots referring to the alleged incident. It becomes clear that the pilots had been communicating on another frequency prior to my entering the traffic pattern and upon setting up for landing switched to 123.0, thus hearing my xmissions to land on runway 31. After reconstructing the flight, prevailing WX conditions, radio xmissions, and subsequent landing, I can only wonder what motivation prompted the accusations that were leveled. It was never made clear, for example, what frequency the pilots were using to contact me or where the alleged 'near miss' occurred. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter said that he does not know the 2 pilots who accused him of these acts and they did not provide him with any supportive information about their claims. He does admit to using the old runway designation of runway 31 versus runway 32. The old runway 31 has been closed for some time, but he, for some reason, used it in his radio calls. He did, however, land on runway 32. The FBO who operates the unicom service admitted that he heard the reporter's radio calls, but did not respond. When he was asked why he did not answer, the FBO did supply a NASA form to him and advised him to not argue with the 2 accusers and to fill out and mail the form. The FAA has sent him a letter of investigation and the pilot has responded with a copy of this report.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE PLT OF A C340 WAS ACCUSED BY 2 OTHER PLTS OF FAILING TO COMMUNICATE, OF LNDG ON THE WRONG RWY AND OF CAUSING AN NMAC.

Narrative: RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS -- FAILING TO RESPOND TO RADIO XMISSIONS UPON APCH TO SHERIDAN ARPT RESULTING IN A NEAR MISS, ABORTED LNDG, AND LNDG ON A CLOSED RWY. WX: VISIBILITY GREATER THAN 50 MI. WIND: CALM. THE FOLLOWING IS A DEPICTION OF THE LAST 20 MI OF THE FLT: MY FIRST CALL WAS MADE OVER LAKE DESMITT ON 123.0 AND RESPONDED TO BY AN UNIDENTED ACFT ASKING FOR MY LOCATION, ONLY. SECOND CALL WAS TO UNICOM 123.0 FOR ACTIVE RWY AND FIELD ADVISORY -- NO ANSWER. THIRD CALL WAS TO SHERIDAN TFC -- NO ANSWER. FOURTH CALL WAS TO SHERIDAN TFC, TURNING L BASE -- AGAIN NO RESPONSE. FIFTH CALL WAS TO SHERIDAN TFC TO NOTIFY LNDG ON RWY 31 -- NO RESPONSE. I HAVE BEEN FLYING IN AND OUT OF SHERIDAN TWICE A YR FOR OVER 20 YRS AND AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH ITS RWYS, AND THE AREA. CALLING FOR RWY 31 INSTEAD OF RWY 32 WAS A MISTAKE BORNE OUT OF HABIT FROM LNDG WHEN RWY 31 WAS AN ACTIVE RWY. AT NO TIME DID I ATTEMPT TO LAND ON RWY 31. AT NO TIME DURING APCH OR SUBSEQUENT LNDG, DID I, OR MY PAX, MAKE VISUAL CONTACT WITH ANY OTHER ACFT. WHY, IF BOTH PLTS WERE MONITORING 123.0, DID THEY CLAIM I WAS NOT XMITTING WHEN THE FIRST CALL OVER THE LAKE WAS ANSWERED AND UPON LNDG THE FBO HAD CONFIRMED MY CALLS, THOUGH DID NOT RESPOND? WHY WAS I ACCUSED OF LNDG ON THE WRONG RWY IF THE ACCUSING PLTS HAD NOT HEARD MY XMISSIONS CALLING TO LAND ON RWY 31 AND WHY DID THEY NOT WARN ME, PRIOR TO MY LNDG, THAT RWY 31 WAS CLOSED? WHY DID THE PLTS FAIL TO CONTACT ME TO GET MY INTENTIONS PRIOR TO LNDG IF A NEAR MISS OR ABORTED LNDG HAD OCCURRED, YET HAD TIME TO NOTIFY THE EMER VEHICLE ON A FREQ OTHER THAN 123.0? THE FIRST XMISSION HEARD FROM THE 2 PLTS WAS AFTER I WAS ON THE TXWY. THIS WAS A PLANE-TO-PLANE XMISSION BTWN THE ACCUSING PLTS REFERRING TO THE ALLEGED INCIDENT. IT BECOMES CLR THAT THE PLTS HAD BEEN COMMUNICATING ON ANOTHER FREQ PRIOR TO MY ENTERING THE TFC PATTERN AND UPON SETTING UP FOR LNDG SWITCHED TO 123.0, THUS HEARING MY XMISSIONS TO LAND ON RWY 31. AFTER RECONSTRUCTING THE FLT, PREVAILING WX CONDITIONS, RADIO XMISSIONS, AND SUBSEQUENT LNDG, I CAN ONLY WONDER WHAT MOTIVATION PROMPTED THE ACCUSATIONS THAT WERE LEVELED. IT WAS NEVER MADE CLR, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT FREQ THE PLTS WERE USING TO CONTACT ME OR WHERE THE ALLEGED 'NEAR MISS' OCCURRED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR SAID THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW THE 2 PLTS WHO ACCUSED HIM OF THESE ACTS AND THEY DID NOT PROVIDE HIM WITH ANY SUPPORTIVE INFO ABOUT THEIR CLAIMS. HE DOES ADMIT TO USING THE OLD RWY DESIGNATION OF RWY 31 VERSUS RWY 32. THE OLD RWY 31 HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR SOME TIME, BUT HE, FOR SOME REASON, USED IT IN HIS RADIO CALLS. HE DID, HOWEVER, LAND ON RWY 32. THE FBO WHO OPERATES THE UNICOM SVC ADMITTED THAT HE HEARD THE RPTR'S RADIO CALLS, BUT DID NOT RESPOND. WHEN HE WAS ASKED WHY HE DID NOT ANSWER, THE FBO DID SUPPLY A NASA FORM TO HIM AND ADVISED HIM TO NOT ARGUE WITH THE 2 ACCUSERS AND TO FILL OUT AND MAIL THE FORM. THE FAA HAS SENT HIM A LETTER OF INVESTIGATION AND THE PLT HAS RESPONDED WITH A COPY OF THIS RPT.

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.