Narrative:

20 NM northeast of sgu, I monitored ASOS (10 NM, clear, calm wind), made a position report, and stated my intentions to enter a left base runway 16. Shortly after, air carrier Y reported 10 NM north and intended to enter left traffic runway 34. I determined that spacing would be sufficient for both aircraft to continue our approachs to opposing runways. C0NTINUED with position reports and monitoring traffic. I was outside 2 NM final for runway 16 when air carrier Y was on short final runway 34. Air carrier Y was and reported clear of the runway, when I was aprox 1.5 miles out. Safety was never in question in my opinion. Aprox 10 mins later, I was approached by mr X with FAA who asked me to describe my perception of what happened in the pattern. I told him exactly what I stated above. He then stated that it was his opinion that mine was not the safest course of action, citing that air carrier Y had to 'stomp' on the brakes to clear the runway and expressed his concern for what would happen had air carrier Y gone missed approach. I told him that I didn't believe that it had been necessary for air carrier Y to brake excessively (I had actually anticipated them rolling to the end of the runway before exiting) and that I had recognized air carrier Y is right of way in the traffic pattern. I had intended on maneuvering out of their way should they execute the missed. I had maintained both communication and visual contact with air carrier Y the entire time they had been in the pattern.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE WISDOM OF TWO ACFT FLYING APCHS TO OPPOSITE ENDS OF AN UNCTLED ARPT RWY. NO C0NFLICT OCCURRED.

Narrative: 20 NM NE OF SGU, I MONITORED ASOS (10 NM, CLR, CALM WIND), MADE A POS RPT, AND STATED MY INTENTIONS TO ENTER A L BASE RWY 16. SHORTLY AFTER, ACR Y RPTED 10 NM N AND INTENDED TO ENTER L TFC RWY 34. I DETERMINED THAT SPACING WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR BOTH ACFT TO CONTINUE OUR APCHS TO OPPOSING RWYS. C0NTINUED WITH POS RPTS AND MONITORING TFC. I WAS OUTSIDE 2 NM FINAL FOR RWY 16 WHEN ACR Y WAS ON SHORT FINAL RWY 34. ACR Y WAS AND RPTED CLR OF THE RWY, WHEN I WAS APROX 1.5 MILES OUT. SAFETY WAS NEVER IN QUESTION IN MY OPINION. APROX 10 MINS LATER, I WAS APCHED BY MR X WITH FAA WHO ASKED ME TO DESCRIBE MY PERCEPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PATTERN. I TOLD HIM EXACTLY WHAT I STATED ABOVE. HE THEN STATED THAT IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT MINE WAS NOT THE SAFEST COURSE OF ACTION, CITING THAT ACR Y HAD TO 'STOMP' ON THE BRAKES TO CLR THE RWY AND EXPRESSED HIS CONCERN FOR WHAT WOULD HAPPEN HAD ACR Y GONE MISSED APCH. I TOLD HIM THAT I DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT IT HAD BEEN NECESSARY FOR ACR Y TO BRAKE EXCESSIVELY (I HAD ACTUALLY ANTICIPATED THEM ROLLING TO THE END OF THE RWY BEFORE EXITING) AND THAT I HAD RECOGNIZED ACR Y IS RIGHT OF WAY IN THE TFC PATTERN. I HAD INTENDED ON MANEUVERING OUT OF THEIR WAY SHOULD THEY EXECUTE THE MISSED. I HAD MAINTAINED BOTH COMMUNICATION AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH ACR Y THE ENTIRE TIME THEY HAD BEEN IN THE PATTERN.

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.