Narrative:

When inbound to gad approximately 20 mi east we called in range and were given the WX. Winds were reported as 1503. We called unicom (122.8) for local traffic 10 mi east of gad. We called 5 mi east of gad and stated our intentions of crossing the airport at midpoint for a left turn into a left downwind entry to runway 6. We elected to use runway 6 due to our still being high and also because of reduced visibility to the west. We made additional traffic calls passing over the airport. At midpoint, entering left downwind runway 6, turning base runway 6, turning final runway 6 and short final runway 6. On final approximately 500' AGL we observed a biplane aircraft below us at our 1-2 O'clock position southbound which appeared to be on a low downwind for left traffic runway 36. We continued the approach and when approximately 20' above runway 6 we noticed another biplane on the far end runway 6 opp direction, head on. We made a go around and at approximately 500-600' AGL we heard over unicom 122.8 'what's wrong? Did someone get in our way?' we did not know where the call came from, but thought it was another aircraft who had observed our situation. I replied that, 'yes, someone got in our way, a biplane.' the response then was 'that's because you are using the wrong runway!' we still were not sure who was doing the talking. I responded that our company had reported the current winds at 1503. The response was 'well, they are 2508.' we then decided it must be someone on the ground on unicom doing the talking. He then said, 'that's why was are using runway 24 at gad.' I then advised that we would also use runway 24. We then turned left to heading 030 degrees, followed by a right 210 degree turn back toward the airport and runway 24. We observed another biplane on a left base for runway 24 and announced on 122.8 that we would follow the biplane to runway 24. The biplane landed and we had sufficient spacing until the aircraft stopped on the runway. The person on unicom said, 'well, I believe he has stopped.' we then observed the aircraft do a 180 degree turn and start to backtaxi down runway 6-24, as had the previous biplane. We again had to go around because the aircraft would not clear the runway. Both aircraft had used the runway to backtaxi to abeam the FBO instead of the txwys. After go around we entered left traffic for runway 24. We were on downwind and noticed both aircraft were clear of the runway. I made a statement on unicom that, 'I guess they own the airport.' the unicom operator responded, 'no, you pilots think you own this airport! You never do what you are told.' I advised him we had made every required traffic call and had received no traffic advisories. He then said, 'you guys never requested traffic advisories.' we had requested them on initial call up. We continued to make required traffic calls and landed uneventfully. After landing we taxied in and deplaned our passenger. We also observed the winds to be light and variable. Upon taxiing out I requested and received traffic advisories. I then asked the unicom operator why he had not advised us of the potential conflict on runway 6 & 24 and he said 'because you didn't ask for advisories.' he didn't deny that he was willing to allow a potential accident just to prove some point or punish pilots because of their disobedience. I called flight control and advised them of the potential for problems at gad and they said they were aware of this type situation over there, that we have had numerous problems with gad unicom operator. I also called the chief pilot on duty and advised him. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter feels the unicom operator is trying to act as a controller. His company also has an operator and he is the designated WX obs for this uncontrolled airport. The biplanes were not equipped with radios and were flying at about 200' AGL. Other pilots from his company have reported the same problem with this fixed base operator. Seems to be just one individual that is giving them problems. Airport is a municipal field and would like to see information re: the problems get into the hands of these supervisors.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON TWR ARPT OPERATION. POSITON BEING BROADCAST PER FEDERAL AVIATION REG AND ENCOUNTERED ACFT ON APCH IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

Narrative: WHEN INBND TO GAD APPROX 20 MI E WE CALLED IN RANGE AND WERE GIVEN THE WX. WINDS WERE RPTED AS 1503. WE CALLED UNICOM (122.8) FOR LCL TFC 10 MI E OF GAD. WE CALLED 5 MI E OF GAD AND STATED OUR INTENTIONS OF XING THE ARPT AT MIDPOINT FOR A LEFT TURN INTO A LEFT DOWNWIND ENTRY TO RWY 6. WE ELECTED TO USE RWY 6 DUE TO OUR STILL BEING HIGH AND ALSO BECAUSE OF REDUCED VIS TO THE W. WE MADE ADDITIONAL TFC CALLS PASSING OVER THE ARPT. AT MIDPOINT, ENTERING LEFT DOWNWIND RWY 6, TURNING BASE RWY 6, TURNING FINAL RWY 6 AND SHORT FINAL RWY 6. ON FINAL APPROX 500' AGL WE OBSERVED A BIPLANE ACFT BELOW US AT OUR 1-2 O'CLOCK POS SBND WHICH APPEARED TO BE ON A LOW DOWNWIND FOR LEFT TFC RWY 36. WE CONTINUED THE APCH AND WHEN APPROX 20' ABOVE RWY 6 WE NOTICED ANOTHER BIPLANE ON THE FAR END RWY 6 OPP DIRECTION, HEAD ON. WE MADE A GO AROUND AND AT APPROX 500-600' AGL WE HEARD OVER UNICOM 122.8 'WHAT'S WRONG? DID SOMEONE GET IN OUR WAY?' WE DID NOT KNOW WHERE THE CALL CAME FROM, BUT THOUGHT IT WAS ANOTHER ACFT WHO HAD OBSERVED OUR SITUATION. I REPLIED THAT, 'YES, SOMEONE GOT IN OUR WAY, A BIPLANE.' THE RESPONSE THEN WAS 'THAT'S BECAUSE YOU ARE USING THE WRONG RWY!' WE STILL WERE NOT SURE WHO WAS DOING THE TALKING. I RESPONDED THAT OUR COMPANY HAD RPTED THE CURRENT WINDS AT 1503. THE RESPONSE WAS 'WELL, THEY ARE 2508.' WE THEN DECIDED IT MUST BE SOMEONE ON THE GND ON UNICOM DOING THE TALKING. HE THEN SAID, 'THAT'S WHY WAS ARE USING RWY 24 AT GAD.' I THEN ADVISED THAT WE WOULD ALSO USE RWY 24. WE THEN TURNED LEFT TO HDG 030 DEGS, FOLLOWED BY A RIGHT 210 DEG TURN BACK TOWARD THE ARPT AND RWY 24. WE OBSERVED ANOTHER BIPLANE ON A LEFT BASE FOR RWY 24 AND ANNOUNCED ON 122.8 THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW THE BIPLANE TO RWY 24. THE BIPLANE LANDED AND WE HAD SUFFICIENT SPACING UNTIL THE ACFT STOPPED ON THE RWY. THE PERSON ON UNICOM SAID, 'WELL, I BELIEVE HE HAS STOPPED.' WE THEN OBSERVED THE ACFT DO A 180 DEG TURN AND START TO BACKTAXI DOWN RWY 6-24, AS HAD THE PREVIOUS BIPLANE. WE AGAIN HAD TO GO AROUND BECAUSE THE ACFT WOULD NOT CLR THE RWY. BOTH ACFT HAD USED THE RWY TO BACKTAXI TO ABEAM THE FBO INSTEAD OF THE TXWYS. AFTER GO AROUND WE ENTERED LEFT TFC FOR RWY 24. WE WERE ON DOWNWIND AND NOTICED BOTH ACFT WERE CLR OF THE RWY. I MADE A STATEMENT ON UNICOM THAT, 'I GUESS THEY OWN THE ARPT.' THE UNICOM OPERATOR RESPONDED, 'NO, YOU PLTS THINK YOU OWN THIS ARPT! YOU NEVER DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD.' I ADVISED HIM WE HAD MADE EVERY REQUIRED TFC CALL AND HAD RECEIVED NO TFC ADVISORIES. HE THEN SAID, 'YOU GUYS NEVER REQUESTED TFC ADVISORIES.' WE HAD REQUESTED THEM ON INITIAL CALL UP. WE CONTINUED TO MAKE REQUIRED TFC CALLS AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. AFTER LNDG WE TAXIED IN AND DEPLANED OUR PAX. WE ALSO OBSERVED THE WINDS TO BE LIGHT AND VARIABLE. UPON TAXIING OUT I REQUESTED AND RECEIVED TFC ADVISORIES. I THEN ASKED THE UNICOM OPERATOR WHY HE HAD NOT ADVISED US OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT ON RWY 6 & 24 AND HE SAID 'BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR ADVISORIES.' HE DIDN'T DENY THAT HE WAS WILLING TO ALLOW A POTENTIAL ACCIDENT JUST TO PROVE SOME POINT OR PUNISH PLTS BECAUSE OF THEIR DISOBEDIENCE. I CALLED FLT CTL AND ADVISED THEM OF THE POTENTIAL FOR PROBS AT GAD AND THEY SAID THEY WERE AWARE OF THIS TYPE SITUATION OVER THERE, THAT WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS PROBS WITH GAD UNICOM OPERATOR. I ALSO CALLED THE CHIEF PLT ON DUTY AND ADVISED HIM. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR FEELS THE UNICOM OPERATOR IS TRYING TO ACT AS A CTLR. HIS COMPANY ALSO HAS AN OPERATOR AND HE IS THE DESIGNATED WX OBS FOR THIS UNCTLED ARPT. THE BIPLANES WERE NOT EQUIPPED WITH RADIOS AND WERE FLYING AT ABOUT 200' AGL. OTHER PLTS FROM HIS COMPANY HAVE RPTED THE SAME PROB WITH THIS FIXED BASE OPERATOR. SEEMS TO BE JUST ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT IS GIVING THEM PROBS. ARPT IS A MUNICIPAL FIELD AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE INFO RE: THE PROBS GET INTO THE HANDS OF THESE SUPVRS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.