Narrative:

Aircraft #1 was inbound to lwv and called a 10 mi final for runway 36. No other aircraft were observed at that time. Aircraft #1 continued inbound and called a 5 1/2 mi final, no other aircraft were heard on CTAF or observed. On approximately a 1/2 mi final, aircraft #1 observed the landing light of aircraft #2, which was at a higher altitude. No radio calls were heard by aircraft #1 from aircraft #2. As aircraft #1 entered a flare for touchdown, aircraft #2 switched to land on runway 27 instead of runway 18. After aircraft #1 taxied to the ramp, aircraft #2 taxied up next to aircraft #1. The pilot of aircraft #2 approached the pilot of aircraft #1 and idented himself as a federal officer and demanded to see the pilot certificate of the pilot of aircraft #1. The pilot of aircraft #2 then began cursing at the pilot of aircraft #1, saying that pilot #1 ignored his radio calls and purposely forced him to have to divert to runway 27. At that time, the line service personnel came out and asked what the problem was. Pilot #2 asked the line man if he knew 'this expletive person' and then the line person said that he heard both pilots on the radio. The pilot of aircraft #2 copied the certificate number of pilot #1 and then left. Possible cause of aircraft dispute: 1) malfunction of radio in aircraft #2. 2) improper radio settings in aircraft #1. 3) neither aircraft flying a traffic pattern. Possible corrective actions: 1) doublechk radio settings before approach. 2) fly a traffic pattern versus doing a straight-in. 3) be aware that the lower aircraft has the right-of-way. 4) behave in a professional manner when addressing an issue with another pilot.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT BTWN 2 C172'S, OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC, SAME RWY DURING A NIGHT OP AT LWV.

Narrative: ACFT #1 WAS INBOUND TO LWV AND CALLED A 10 MI FINAL FOR RWY 36. NO OTHER ACFT WERE OBSERVED AT THAT TIME. ACFT #1 CONTINUED INBOUND AND CALLED A 5 1/2 MI FINAL, NO OTHER ACFT WERE HEARD ON CTAF OR OBSERVED. ON APPROX A 1/2 MI FINAL, ACFT #1 OBSERVED THE LNDG LIGHT OF ACFT #2, WHICH WAS AT A HIGHER ALT. NO RADIO CALLS WERE HEARD BY ACFT #1 FROM ACFT #2. AS ACFT #1 ENTERED A FLARE FOR TOUCHDOWN, ACFT #2 SWITCHED TO LAND ON RWY 27 INSTEAD OF RWY 18. AFTER ACFT #1 TAXIED TO THE RAMP, ACFT #2 TAXIED UP NEXT TO ACFT #1. THE PLT OF ACFT #2 APCHED THE PLT OF ACFT #1 AND IDENTED HIMSELF AS A FEDERAL OFFICER AND DEMANDED TO SEE THE PLT CERTIFICATE OF THE PLT OF ACFT #1. THE PLT OF ACFT #2 THEN BEGAN CURSING AT THE PLT OF ACFT #1, SAYING THAT PLT #1 IGNORED HIS RADIO CALLS AND PURPOSELY FORCED HIM TO HAVE TO DIVERT TO RWY 27. AT THAT TIME, THE LINE SVC PERSONNEL CAME OUT AND ASKED WHAT THE PROB WAS. PLT #2 ASKED THE LINE MAN IF HE KNEW 'THIS EXPLETIVE PERSON' AND THEN THE LINE PERSON SAID THAT HE HEARD BOTH PLTS ON THE RADIO. THE PLT OF ACFT #2 COPIED THE CERTIFICATE NUMBER OF PLT #1 AND THEN LEFT. POSSIBLE CAUSE OF ACFT DISPUTE: 1) MALFUNCTION OF RADIO IN ACFT #2. 2) IMPROPER RADIO SETTINGS IN ACFT #1. 3) NEITHER ACFT FLYING A TFC PATTERN. POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: 1) DOUBLECHK RADIO SETTINGS BEFORE APCH. 2) FLY A TFC PATTERN VERSUS DOING A STRAIGHT-IN. 3) BE AWARE THAT THE LOWER ACFT HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. 4) BEHAVE IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER WHEN ADDRESSING AN ISSUE WITH ANOTHER PLT.

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.