Narrative:

The runway in use at dxr at the time of the incident was runway 35. Winds as reported by the dxr tower were 330 degrees at 10 KTS gusting to 18 KTS. Upon approaching dxr I (PA60) requested runway 26. I was clear for a right downwind approach to runway 26. As expected, the tower continued to clear lndgs on runway 35 and at the same time directed me (PA60) to continue to runway 26 as requested. Both aircraft approached the runways at the same time. The aircraft attempting to land on runway 35 declared a go around and proceeded to perform it. Immediately after acknowledging the go around intention of the aircraft landing on runway 35 (grumman), the dxr tower asked me (the aircraft landing on runway 26, PA60) to also perform a go around immediately. Subsequently, both aircraft performed a go around and almost collided directly over the airport. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter said he always requests landing on runway 26 because it's longer than runway 35. On the day of the incident, runway 35 was in use because the wind was reported 330 degrees at 10 KTS gusting to 18 KTS. Still he said he called the tower inbound and requested runway 26. He said normally he asks the tower to call his base but doesn't recall if he asked on this particular day. He feels the controllers don't put much effort into trying to make the cross operation work. He said he would plan a visit to the tower to discuss the issue and try to work things out.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR CLAIMS THAT AFTER ACFT X LNDG RWY 35 STARTED GAR, CTLR ISSUED GAR INSTRUCTIONS TO ACFT Y LNDG ON XING RWY 26 CAUSING AN NMAC OVER THE ARPT.

Narrative: THE RWY IN USE AT DXR AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT WAS RWY 35. WINDS AS RPTED BY THE DXR TWR WERE 330 DEGS AT 10 KTS GUSTING TO 18 KTS. UPON APCHING DXR I (PA60) REQUESTED RWY 26. I WAS CLR FOR A R DOWNWIND APCH TO RWY 26. AS EXPECTED, THE TWR CONTINUED TO CLR LNDGS ON RWY 35 AND AT THE SAME TIME DIRECTED ME (PA60) TO CONTINUE TO RWY 26 AS REQUESTED. BOTH ACFT APCHED THE RWYS AT THE SAME TIME. THE ACFT ATTEMPTING TO LAND ON RWY 35 DECLARED A GAR AND PROCEEDED TO PERFORM IT. IMMEDIATELY AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING THE GAR INTENTION OF THE ACFT LNDG ON RWY 35 (GRUMMAN), THE DXR TWR ASKED ME (THE ACFT LNDG ON RWY 26, PA60) TO ALSO PERFORM A GAR IMMEDIATELY. SUBSEQUENTLY, BOTH ACFT PERFORMED A GAR AND ALMOST COLLIDED DIRECTLY OVER THE ARPT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR SAID HE ALWAYS REQUESTS LNDG ON RWY 26 BECAUSE IT'S LONGER THAN RWY 35. ON THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT, RWY 35 WAS IN USE BECAUSE THE WIND WAS RPTED 330 DEGS AT 10 KTS GUSTING TO 18 KTS. STILL HE SAID HE CALLED THE TWR INBOUND AND REQUESTED RWY 26. HE SAID NORMALLY HE ASKS THE TWR TO CALL HIS BASE BUT DOESN'T RECALL IF HE ASKED ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY. HE FEELS THE CTLRS DON'T PUT MUCH EFFORT INTO TRYING TO MAKE THE CROSS OP WORK. HE SAID HE WOULD PLAN A VISIT TO THE TWR TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE AND TRY TO WORK THINGS OUT.

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.