Narrative:

I was practicing touch-and-goes at las cruces international airport. Upon landing, I was informed that I had cut off a cessna citation on final for the runway I was using. This was clearly a failure on my part to give way to traffic that had the right-of-way under far 91.113(G). Contributing circumstances may be instructional. I did not hear the approaching citation announce its intention on the CTAF (122.7) to fly a non-standard traffic pattern. Ground personnel reported to me, when I landed that, although my position announcements in the pattern were heard clearly, both the citation and ground personnel had tried several times to contact me without success. I did not hear any of these attempts. I had performed several operations with my radio that I thought confirmed its operation. These included checking AWOS on a different frequency (119.025) on 2 occasions, hearing 1 departing aircraft on CTAF, and opening the squelch to verify backgnd noise on CTAF. The radio will be tested, and it may be that it is deaf on the CTAF. A positive radio check to verify 2-WAY communication, prior to departure, might have prevented the traffic conflict. On the other hand, although I am extremely grateful to the citation pilot for taking positive evasive action, he apparently acted on the assumption that transmission of his intentions constituted reception of his intentions. The fact that I did not acknowledge his announced intentions (or any of the ground radio calls), might have suggested the possibility that I was unaware of his presence and intentions, and that a standard pattern might have been in order. Still, it shouldn't have been as necessary as it turned out to be.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POSSIBLE NMAC AT A NON TWR ARPT WHEN ONE ACFT'S RADIO IS MALFUNCTIONING AND THE OTHER ACFT FLIES A NON STANDARD PATTERN AT LRU, NM.

Narrative: I WAS PRACTICING TOUCH-AND-GOES AT LAS CRUCES INTL ARPT. UPON LNDG, I WAS INFORMED THAT I HAD CUT OFF A CESSNA CITATION ON FINAL FOR THE RWY I WAS USING. THIS WAS CLRLY A FAILURE ON MY PART TO GIVE WAY TO TFC THAT HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY UNDER FAR 91.113(G). CONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE INSTRUCTIONAL. I DID NOT HEAR THE APCHING CITATION ANNOUNCE ITS INTENTION ON THE CTAF (122.7) TO FLY A NON-STANDARD TFC PATTERN. GND PERSONNEL RPTED TO ME, WHEN I LANDED THAT, ALTHOUGH MY POS ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE PATTERN WERE HEARD CLRLY, BOTH THE CITATION AND GND PERSONNEL HAD TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO CONTACT ME WITHOUT SUCCESS. I DID NOT HEAR ANY OF THESE ATTEMPTS. I HAD PERFORMED SEVERAL OPS WITH MY RADIO THAT I THOUGHT CONFIRMED ITS OP. THESE INCLUDED CHKING AWOS ON A DIFFERENT FREQ (119.025) ON 2 OCCASIONS, HEARING 1 DEPARTING ACFT ON CTAF, AND OPENING THE SQUELCH TO VERIFY BACKGND NOISE ON CTAF. THE RADIO WILL BE TESTED, AND IT MAY BE THAT IT IS DEAF ON THE CTAF. A POSITIVE RADIO CHK TO VERIFY 2-WAY COM, PRIOR TO DEP, MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THE TFC CONFLICT. ON THE OTHER HAND, ALTHOUGH I AM EXTREMELY GRATEFUL TO THE CITATION PLT FOR TAKING POSITIVE EVASIVE ACTION, HE APPARENTLY ACTED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT XMISSION OF HIS INTENTIONS CONSTITUTED RECEPTION OF HIS INTENTIONS. THE FACT THAT I DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE HIS ANNOUNCED INTENTIONS (OR ANY OF THE GND RADIO CALLS), MIGHT HAVE SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY THAT I WAS UNAWARE OF HIS PRESENCE AND INTENTIONS, AND THAT A STANDARD PATTERN MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN ORDER. STILL, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AS NECESSARY AS IT TURNED OUT TO BE.

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.