Narrative:

The other twin was on a practice ILS or localizer approach to runway 31. He was supposed to go missed at 3 mi from the airport. He didn't and did a low approach across the entire length of runway 31. We were cleared for takeoff (another aircraft did a touch-and-go before us) and proceeded to take off. The aircraft just before us was in left closed traffic and we were right downwind so the speed difference was not a factor (C150 or C172). There was an aircraft on final behind us. We saw these other aircraft and separation (so far) was not a problem. After we took off and was climbing through 50-100 ft, I thought I saw 2 aircraft, so I leveled off at about 150 ft AGL and asked my instructor if there were 2 aircraft. I had also glanced down and determined there was not enough room to descend and land on the remaining runway without the possibility of going off the end -- mainly due to speed. The other twin went right over us about 100 ft. According to the radio chatter afterward, the twin on the approach did not hear the 3 NM turnout instructions. At the time he was told about these, I was doing my run-up and my instructor was listing, so I don't know if he read them back or not. I don't know if it is relevant, but when we came in before, the approach controller didn't have it all together, missing calls and forgetting about aircraft. I don't know if the twin read back the 3 NM turnout, but the rule where the controller doesn't have to hear the readback correctly may have almost caused a midair. Also, radar at sns would be a big help.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE76 DEPARTING SNS EXPERIENCES CLOSE CALL WITH GAR ACFT.

Narrative: THE OTHER TWIN WAS ON A PRACTICE ILS OR LOC APCH TO RWY 31. HE WAS SUPPOSED TO GO MISSED AT 3 MI FROM THE ARPT. HE DIDN'T AND DID A LOW APCH ACROSS THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF RWY 31. WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF (ANOTHER ACFT DID A TOUCH-AND-GO BEFORE US) AND PROCEEDED TO TAKE OFF. THE ACFT JUST BEFORE US WAS IN L CLOSED TFC AND WE WERE R DOWNWIND SO THE SPD DIFFERENCE WAS NOT A FACTOR (C150 OR C172). THERE WAS AN ACFT ON FINAL BEHIND US. WE SAW THESE OTHER ACFT AND SEPARATION (SO FAR) WAS NOT A PROB. AFTER WE TOOK OFF AND WAS CLBING THROUGH 50-100 FT, I THOUGHT I SAW 2 ACFT, SO I LEVELED OFF AT ABOUT 150 FT AGL AND ASKED MY INSTRUCTOR IF THERE WERE 2 ACFT. I HAD ALSO GLANCED DOWN AND DETERMINED THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO DSND AND LAND ON THE REMAINING RWY WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF GOING OFF THE END -- MAINLY DUE TO SPD. THE OTHER TWIN WENT RIGHT OVER US ABOUT 100 FT. ACCORDING TO THE RADIO CHATTER AFTERWARD, THE TWIN ON THE APCH DID NOT HEAR THE 3 NM TURNOUT INSTRUCTIONS. AT THE TIME HE WAS TOLD ABOUT THESE, I WAS DOING MY RUN-UP AND MY INSTRUCTOR WAS LISTING, SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE READ THEM BACK OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS RELEVANT, BUT WHEN WE CAME IN BEFORE, THE APCH CTLR DIDN'T HAVE IT ALL TOGETHER, MISSING CALLS AND FORGETTING ABOUT ACFT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE TWIN READ BACK THE 3 NM TURNOUT, BUT THE RULE WHERE THE CTLR DOESN'T HAVE TO HEAR THE READBACK CORRECTLY MAY HAVE ALMOST CAUSED A MIDAIR. ALSO, RADAR AT SNS WOULD BE A BIG HELP.

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.