Narrative:

I was an instructor on a dual local training flight at the aug airport on jul/xa/01 at XA30. My student and I had just made a landing on runway 35 in a C172. After landing, we announced our back-taxi and proceeded to back-taxi the 3500 ft to takeoff again. As we were turning around to back taxi, a beech 1900 commuter announced they were 13 mi out, making a straight-in approach to runway 35. (Note: at 13 mi from the airport, on a VFR night, at an uncontrolled airport does not allow other activities to go on until the approaching aircraft is in the vicinity of the traffic pattern.) just before we turned around to take off, I did see the landing light for the beech 1900 and it appeared to me that he was well beyond 5 mi out. We had plenty of time to back-taxi and to take off. When we reached the end of the runway 35, we turned around and the student started the takeoff and called that we were departing runway 35. Right after this, the beech 1900 made a call that they were on a 4-MI final for runway 35. (During our landing, back-taxi and takeoff the runway lights were on low.) as we were departing, the beech 1900 turned the runway lights on high. I found it odd that this was the only time, at 4 mi out, that he brought the runway lights up to high, as most pilots use high to help them find the airport. After they turned the runway lights up to high, I immediately turned back to low because the lights on high made it difficult to see the runway during my departure. They then turned the lights back up to high, and I turned them back to low and made a radio announcement to them that we were still taking off and as soon as we were out of the way they could have the lights. Again, I find it odd that inside of 4 mi a pilot would want high runway lights. I mention this because the whole activity in my opinion was harassment to me. As I did my climb out and turned downwind for runway 35 at about 1400 ft MSL, I could see the beech 1900 just completing his landing roll and start to back-taxi to runway 35. I feel there was adequate time for me to takeoff and for him to land, without causing any undo maneuvering or change in flight path or reduction in speed or disrupting his view and orientation to the runway. I realize by FARS that the landing aircraft has the right-of-way over aircraft on the ground. I felt that during this whole procedure that my departure took place in a legal way as he was still at 5 mi or better to take off. As a suggestion to remedy the problem, I would suggest that commuter aircraft approaching an airport should conform to the traffic pattern as other aircraft do.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 INSTRUCTOR, WITH TRAINEE, PRACTICING NIGHT TKOFS AND LNDGS, WAS BOTHERED BY THE RWY LIGHTS' INTENSITY RAISED JUST PRIOR TO TKOF BY A BEECH 1900 FLC ON A 4 MI FINAL. THEY LOWERED THE LIGHT INTENSITY ONLY TO HAVE IT IMMEDIATELY RAISED BACK AGAIN.

Narrative: I WAS AN INSTRUCTOR ON A DUAL LCL TRAINING FLT AT THE AUG ARPT ON JUL/XA/01 AT XA30. MY STUDENT AND I HAD JUST MADE A LNDG ON RWY 35 IN A C172. AFTER LNDG, WE ANNOUNCED OUR BACK-TAXI AND PROCEEDED TO BACK-TAXI THE 3500 FT TO TKOF AGAIN. AS WE WERE TURNING AROUND TO BACK TAXI, A BEECH 1900 COMMUTER ANNOUNCED THEY WERE 13 MI OUT, MAKING A STRAIGHT-IN APCH TO RWY 35. (NOTE: AT 13 MI FROM THE ARPT, ON A VFR NIGHT, AT AN UNCTLED ARPT DOES NOT ALLOW OTHER ACTIVITIES TO GO ON UNTIL THE APCHING ACFT IS IN THE VICINITY OF THE TFC PATTERN.) JUST BEFORE WE TURNED AROUND TO TAKE OFF, I DID SEE THE LNDG LIGHT FOR THE BEECH 1900 AND IT APPEARED TO ME THAT HE WAS WELL BEYOND 5 MI OUT. WE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO BACK-TAXI AND TO TAKE OFF. WHEN WE REACHED THE END OF THE RWY 35, WE TURNED AROUND AND THE STUDENT STARTED THE TKOF AND CALLED THAT WE WERE DEPARTING RWY 35. RIGHT AFTER THIS, THE BEECH 1900 MADE A CALL THAT THEY WERE ON A 4-MI FINAL FOR RWY 35. (DURING OUR LNDG, BACK-TAXI AND TKOF THE RWY LIGHTS WERE ON LOW.) AS WE WERE DEPARTING, THE BEECH 1900 TURNED THE RWY LIGHTS ON HIGH. I FOUND IT ODD THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY TIME, AT 4 MI OUT, THAT HE BROUGHT THE RWY LIGHTS UP TO HIGH, AS MOST PLTS USE HIGH TO HELP THEM FIND THE ARPT. AFTER THEY TURNED THE RWY LIGHTS UP TO HIGH, I IMMEDIATELY TURNED BACK TO LOW BECAUSE THE LIGHTS ON HIGH MADE IT DIFFICULT TO SEE THE RWY DURING MY DEP. THEY THEN TURNED THE LIGHTS BACK UP TO HIGH, AND I TURNED THEM BACK TO LOW AND MADE A RADIO ANNOUNCEMENT TO THEM THAT WE WERE STILL TAKING OFF AND AS SOON AS WE WERE OUT OF THE WAY THEY COULD HAVE THE LIGHTS. AGAIN, I FIND IT ODD THAT INSIDE OF 4 MI A PLT WOULD WANT HIGH RWY LIGHTS. I MENTION THIS BECAUSE THE WHOLE ACTIVITY IN MY OPINION WAS HARASSMENT TO ME. AS I DID MY CLBOUT AND TURNED DOWNWIND FOR RWY 35 AT ABOUT 1400 FT MSL, I COULD SEE THE BEECH 1900 JUST COMPLETING HIS LNDG ROLL AND START TO BACK-TAXI TO RWY 35. I FEEL THERE WAS ADEQUATE TIME FOR ME TO TKOF AND FOR HIM TO LAND, WITHOUT CAUSING ANY UNDO MANEUVERING OR CHANGE IN FLT PATH OR REDUCTION IN SPD OR DISRUPTING HIS VIEW AND ORIENTATION TO THE RWY. I REALIZE BY FARS THAT THE LNDG ACFT HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER ACFT ON THE GND. I FELT THAT DURING THIS WHOLE PROC THAT MY DEP TOOK PLACE IN A LEGAL WAY AS HE WAS STILL AT 5 MI OR BETTER TO TAKE OFF. AS A SUGGESTION TO REMEDY THE PROB, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT COMMUTER ACFT APCHING AN ARPT SHOULD CONFORM TO THE TFC PATTERN AS OTHER ACFT DO.

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.