THE PLT OF A C340 WAS ACCUSED BY 2 OTHER PLTS OF FAILING TO COMMUNICATE; OF LNDG ON THE WRONG RWY AND OF CAUSING AN NMAC.

Narrative

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS -- FAILING TO RESPOND TO RADIO XMISSIONS UPON APCH TO SHERIDAN ARPT RESULTING IN A NEAR MISS; ABORTED LNDG; AND LNDG ON A CLOSED RWY. WX: VISIBILITY GREATER THAN 50 MI. WIND: CALM. THE FOLLOWING IS A DEPICTION OF THE LAST 20 MI OF THE FLT: MY FIRST CALL WAS MADE OVER LAKE DESMITT ON 123.0 AND RESPONDED TO BY AN UNIDENTED ACFT ASKING FOR MY LOCATION; ONLY. SECOND CALL WAS TO UNICOM 123.0 FOR ACTIVE RWY AND FIELD ADVISORY -- NO ANSWER. THIRD CALL WAS TO SHERIDAN TFC -- NO ANSWER. FOURTH CALL WAS TO SHERIDAN TFC; TURNING L BASE -- AGAIN NO RESPONSE. FIFTH CALL WAS TO SHERIDAN TFC TO NOTIFY LNDG ON RWY 31 -- NO RESPONSE. I HAVE BEEN FLYING IN AND OUT OF SHERIDAN TWICE A YR FOR OVER 20 YRS AND AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH ITS RWYS; AND THE AREA. CALLING FOR RWY 31 INSTEAD OF RWY 32 WAS A MISTAKE BORNE OUT OF HABIT FROM LNDG WHEN RWY 31 WAS AN ACTIVE RWY. AT NO TIME DID I ATTEMPT TO LAND ON RWY 31. AT NO TIME DURING APCH OR SUBSEQUENT LNDG; DID I; OR MY PAX; MAKE VISUAL CONTACT WITH ANY OTHER ACFT. WHY; IF BOTH PLTS WERE MONITORING 123.0; DID THEY CLAIM I WAS NOT XMITTING WHEN THE FIRST CALL OVER THE LAKE WAS ANSWERED AND UPON LNDG THE FBO HAD CONFIRMED MY CALLS; THOUGH DID NOT RESPOND? WHY WAS I ACCUSED OF LNDG ON THE WRONG RWY IF THE ACCUSING PLTS HAD NOT HEARD MY XMISSIONS CALLING TO LAND ON RWY 31 AND WHY DID THEY NOT WARN ME; PRIOR TO MY LNDG; THAT RWY 31 WAS CLOSED? WHY DID THE PLTS FAIL TO CONTACT ME TO GET MY INTENTIONS PRIOR TO LNDG IF A NEAR MISS OR ABORTED LNDG HAD OCCURRED; YET HAD TIME TO NOTIFY THE EMER VEHICLE ON A FREQ OTHER THAN 123.0? THE FIRST XMISSION HEARD FROM THE 2 PLTS WAS AFTER I WAS ON THE TXWY. THIS WAS A PLANE-TO-PLANE XMISSION BTWN THE ACCUSING PLTS REFERRING TO THE ALLEGED INCIDENT. IT BECOMES CLR THAT THE PLTS HAD BEEN COMMUNICATING ON ANOTHER FREQ PRIOR TO MY ENTERING THE TFC PATTERN AND UPON SETTING UP FOR LNDG SWITCHED TO 123.0; THUS HEARING MY XMISSIONS TO LAND ON RWY 31. AFTER RECONSTRUCTING THE FLT; PREVAILING WX CONDITIONS; RADIO XMISSIONS; AND SUBSEQUENT LNDG; I CAN ONLY WONDER WHAT MOTIVATION PROMPTED THE ACCUSATIONS THAT WERE LEVELED. IT WAS NEVER MADE CLR; FOR EXAMPLE; WHAT FREQ THE PLTS WERE USING TO CONTACT ME OR WHERE THE ALLEGED 'NEAR MISS' OCCURRED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR SAID THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW THE 2 PLTS WHO ACCUSED HIM OF THESE ACTS AND THEY DID NOT PROVIDE HIM WITH ANY SUPPORTIVE INFO ABOUT THEIR CLAIMS. HE DOES ADMIT TO USING THE OLD RWY DESIGNATION OF RWY 31 VERSUS RWY 32. THE OLD RWY 31 HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR SOME TIME; BUT HE; FOR SOME REASON; USED IT IN HIS RADIO CALLS. HE DID; HOWEVER; LAND ON RWY 32. THE FBO WHO OPERATES THE UNICOM SVC ADMITTED THAT HE HEARD THE RPTR'S RADIO CALLS; BUT DID NOT RESPOND. WHEN HE WAS ASKED WHY HE DID NOT ANSWER; THE FBO DID SUPPLY A NASA FORM TO HIM AND ADVISED HIM TO NOT ARGUE WITH THE 2 ACCUSERS AND TO FILL OUT AND MAIL THE FORM. THE FAA HAS SENT HIM A LETTER OF INVESTIGATION AND THE PLT HAS RESPONDED WITH A COPY OF THIS RPT.