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.