PLT SEES CONFLICT OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION TKOFS FROM THE AIR.

Narrative

THE INCIDENT IN QUESTION OCCURRED AT BHB. WX CONDITIONS AT THE TIME WERE VFR; WITH VISIBILITY OF APPROX 15 MI; AND REASONABLY HIGH CEILINGS. I HAD JUST DEPARTED BHB ON RWY 22 IN AN SMA X ON A VFR FLT PLAN TO ST JOHN; NEW BRUNSWICK; AND HAD MADE L TFC IN EXITING THE PATTERN. AS I DEPARTED RWY 22; AN SMA Y THAT HAD BACK TAXIED FROM THE RAMP ON RWY 17-35 (SEE ATTACHED DIAGRAM) WAITED ON 17-35 UNTIL I HAD PASSED HIM ON MY TKOF ROLL; AND ANNOUNCED ON CTAF THAT HE WOULD BACK-TAXI ON 4-22 FOR A DEP ON 22. ALL AREA TFC AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT WAS BROADCASTING ON CTAF; 123.0. DURING MY DEP; A JET THAT WAS PLANNING TO LAND AT BHB BEGAN GIVING RPTS OF HIS INTENTIONS. APPROX 1 OR 2 MINS AFTER MY TKOF; THE SMA Y ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD BE DEPARTING ON RWY 22. AT THIS SAME TIME; AN SMA Z ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD BE DEPARTING ON RWY 4. I SHOULD MENTION SOMETHING I NOTICED WHEN I TOOK MY PLACE AT THE END OF RWY 22 FOR TKOF: THE RWY APPEARED TO HAVE A HIGH SPOT IN THE MIDDLE OF ITS LENGTH; AND THUS MADE THE FAR END OF THE RWY DIFFICULT TO SEE. WHEN I SAW BOTH THE SMA Y AND THE SMA Z TAKING OFF FROM OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE RWY; I WAS APPROX 2 MI E OF BHB. I IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED THE SMA Z PLT OF THE SMA Y TFC; SAYING SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF SMA Z AT BAR HARBOR: BE ADVISED YOU HAVE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC DEPARTING RWY 22 AT THIS TIME. HE DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ME; BUT I KNOW THAT MY XMISSION WAS AT LEAST HEARD; BECAUSE FOR SOME REASON THE JET DID ACKNOWLEDGE ME. AT APPROX THE MIDPOINT OF THE RWY; THE SMA Z SWERVED TO THE R TO AVOID THE ONCOMING SMA Y. I WOULD ESTIMATE THAT THE PLANES WERE APPROX 50-100 FT FROM EACH OTHER WHEN THEY PASSED ONE ANOTHER. BOTH ACFT APPEARED TO BE ON THE GND AT THE TIME; AND THE SMA Z APPEARED TO HAVE SLOWED DOWN A GREAT DEAL (TO APPROX 20 KTS) BY THE TIME THEY PASSED EACH OTHER. IT WAS NOT APPARENT WHAT; IF ANY EVASIVE ACTION THE SMA Y TOOK. THE SMA Z EVENTUALLY CAME TO REST IN THE GRASS ALONG SIDE THE RWY JUST SW OF THE INTXN OF RWYS 17-35 AND 4-22. THE SMA Y CONTINUED ITS DEP; AND THE LAST THING I COULD SEE WAS THE SMA Z TAXIING ONTO RWY 17-35. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT A NOTE OF THE UNEVEN RWY SURFACE BE PUBLISHED IN THE U.S. GOV ARPT/FACILITY DIRECTORY AND/OR SIGNS BE PLACED NEAR THE RWY NOTIFYING PLTS OF THE SITUATION. THE ARPT SEEMS FAIRLY BUSY FOR AN UNCTLED FIELD; AND ATTRACTS A WIDE VARIETY OF TFC; INCLUDING CORPORATE JETS; COMMUTER AIRLINES; SMALLER PRIVATE ACFT; SIGHTSEEING ACFT; AND GLIDER OPS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR INDICATES THIS SITUATION COULD BE AVOIDED IF THERE WAS BETTER VISIBILITY AT EACH END OF THE RWY. BEYOND RESTRUCTURING THE RWY A NOTICE IN AF/D AND/OR SIGNS INDICATING THE INABILITY TO SEE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC AT EACH END OF RWY WOULD HELP.