Narrative:

We were holding short of runway 27 at tex waiting to be released. There were 3 aircraft inbound to tex. 2 VFR aircraft east of the field (I will call them aircraft #1 and aircraft #2) and 1 aircraft west. The aircraft west was a learjet on an IFR arrival to runway 9. The other 2 aircraft east of the field were also inbound for landing, however, only 1 was transmitting on unicom. While on the ground, we were only aware of the lear which was on short final and aircraft #1 that we saw setting up for about a 2 mi final for runway 27. As the lear was rolling out on landing, someone on unicom transmitted, 'aircraft east of the field be advised that a lear is on the runway and runway 9 has been the runway of choice for landing.' aircraft #2 (which we could not see) responded that they were not going to land on runway 27 and they were going to enter a right downwind for runway 9. At the same time, this was transmitted, aircraft #1 broke off his/her approach for runway 27 and entered a right downwind for runway 9. Once the lear cleared the runway, we were released for takeoff. My first officer transmitted on unicom,' the aircraft that is overhead the field, this is CE560, would you mind if we depart to meet our void time?' aircraft #2 transmitted back (which we thought was aircraft #1) 'yes, go ahead and depart, I will extend my downwind and not turn base until you are clear.' after we started to pass through 70 KTS, I saw aircraft #1 start a tight right base. At this point we had no choice but to continue the takeoff. We maintained visual contact with aircraft #1 as we climbed out. At no time did aircraft #1 make any evasive actions to avoid us. We were able to avoid aircraft #1 by climbing out at a relative high rate of climb. Aircraft #1 overshot his final and appeared to continue in for a landing. It then became obvious to us that this was not the aircraft acknowledging our xmissions. As we continued our climb out, we saw aircraft #2 for the first time on about a 2 mi wide right downwind for runway 9. Aircraft #1 (which we idented to be a bonanza) either was not monitoring unicom or had no radios. The lesson we learned is to make sure the aircraft we are transmitting to is the aircraft we have in visual contact with. If in doubt, wait for the other aircraft to land. This also could have been avoided if the bonanza would have monitored unicom or transmitted on the tex unicom. That is if he or she didn't have a radio failure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C560 CREW ON TKOF ROLL AT TEX, A NON TWR ARPT, SAW ANOTHER ACFT ON BASE LNDG OPPOSITE DIRECTION. AN EVASIVE CLB WAS INITIATED BY DEPARTING ACFT.

Narrative: WE WERE HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 27 AT TEX WAITING TO BE RELEASED. THERE WERE 3 ACFT INBOUND TO TEX. 2 VFR ACFT E OF THE FIELD (I WILL CALL THEM ACFT #1 AND ACFT #2) AND 1 ACFT W. THE ACFT W WAS A LEARJET ON AN IFR ARR TO RWY 9. THE OTHER 2 ACFT E OF THE FIELD WERE ALSO INBOUND FOR LNDG, HOWEVER, ONLY 1 WAS XMITTING ON UNICOM. WHILE ON THE GND, WE WERE ONLY AWARE OF THE LEAR WHICH WAS ON SHORT FINAL AND ACFT #1 THAT WE SAW SETTING UP FOR ABOUT A 2 MI FINAL FOR RWY 27. AS THE LEAR WAS ROLLING OUT ON LNDG, SOMEONE ON UNICOM XMITTED, 'ACFT E OF THE FIELD BE ADVISED THAT A LEAR IS ON THE RWY AND RWY 9 HAS BEEN THE RWY OF CHOICE FOR LNDG.' ACFT #2 (WHICH WE COULD NOT SEE) RESPONDED THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO LAND ON RWY 27 AND THEY WERE GOING TO ENTER A R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 9. AT THE SAME TIME, THIS WAS XMITTED, ACFT #1 BROKE OFF HIS/HER APCH FOR RWY 27 AND ENTERED A R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 9. ONCE THE LEAR CLRED THE RWY, WE WERE RELEASED FOR TKOF. MY FO XMITTED ON UNICOM,' THE ACFT THAT IS OVERHEAD THE FIELD, THIS IS CE560, WOULD YOU MIND IF WE DEPART TO MEET OUR VOID TIME?' ACFT #2 XMITTED BACK (WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS ACFT #1) 'YES, GO AHEAD AND DEPART, I WILL EXTEND MY DOWNWIND AND NOT TURN BASE UNTIL YOU ARE CLR.' AFTER WE STARTED TO PASS THROUGH 70 KTS, I SAW ACFT #1 START A TIGHT R BASE. AT THIS POINT WE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE THE TKOF. WE MAINTAINED VISUAL CONTACT WITH ACFT #1 AS WE CLBED OUT. AT NO TIME DID ACFT #1 MAKE ANY EVASIVE ACTIONS TO AVOID US. WE WERE ABLE TO AVOID ACFT #1 BY CLBING OUT AT A RELATIVE HIGH RATE OF CLB. ACFT #1 OVERSHOT HIS FINAL AND APPEARED TO CONTINUE IN FOR A LNDG. IT THEN BECAME OBVIOUS TO US THAT THIS WAS NOT THE ACFT ACKNOWLEDGING OUR XMISSIONS. AS WE CONTINUED OUR CLBOUT, WE SAW ACFT #2 FOR THE FIRST TIME ON ABOUT A 2 MI WIDE R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 9. ACFT #1 (WHICH WE IDENTED TO BE A BONANZA) EITHER WAS NOT MONITORING UNICOM OR HAD NO RADIOS. THE LESSON WE LEARNED IS TO MAKE SURE THE ACFT WE ARE XMITTING TO IS THE ACFT WE HAVE IN VISUAL CONTACT WITH. IF IN DOUBT, WAIT FOR THE OTHER ACFT TO LAND. THIS ALSO COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE BONANZA WOULD HAVE MONITORED UNICOM OR XMITTED ON THE TEX UNICOM. THAT IS IF HE OR SHE DIDN'T HAVE A RADIO FAILURE.

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.