POSSIBLE NMAC AT A NON TWR ARPT WHEN ONE ACFT'S RADIO IS MALFUNCTIONING AND THE OTHER ACFT FLIES A NON STANDARD PATTERN AT LRU; NM.

Narrative

I WAS PRACTICING TOUCH-AND-GOES AT LAS CRUCES INTL ARPT. UPON LNDG; I WAS INFORMED THAT I HAD CUT OFF A CESSNA CITATION ON FINAL FOR THE RWY I WAS USING. THIS WAS CLRLY A FAILURE ON MY PART TO GIVE WAY TO TFC THAT HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY UNDER FAR 91.113(G). CONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE INSTRUCTIONAL. I DID NOT HEAR THE APCHING CITATION ANNOUNCE ITS INTENTION ON THE CTAF (122.7) TO FLY A NON-STANDARD TFC PATTERN. GND PERSONNEL RPTED TO ME; WHEN I LANDED THAT; ALTHOUGH MY POS ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE PATTERN WERE HEARD CLRLY; BOTH THE CITATION AND GND PERSONNEL HAD TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO CONTACT ME WITHOUT SUCCESS. I DID NOT HEAR ANY OF THESE ATTEMPTS. I HAD PERFORMED SEVERAL OPS WITH MY RADIO THAT I THOUGHT CONFIRMED ITS OP. THESE INCLUDED CHKING AWOS ON A DIFFERENT FREQ (119.025) ON 2 OCCASIONS; HEARING 1 DEPARTING ACFT ON CTAF; AND OPENING THE SQUELCH TO VERIFY BACKGND NOISE ON CTAF. THE RADIO WILL BE TESTED; AND IT MAY BE THAT IT IS DEAF ON THE CTAF. A POSITIVE RADIO CHK TO VERIFY 2-WAY COM; PRIOR TO DEP; MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THE TFC CONFLICT. ON THE OTHER HAND; ALTHOUGH I AM EXTREMELY GRATEFUL TO THE CITATION PLT FOR TAKING POSITIVE EVASIVE ACTION; HE APPARENTLY ACTED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT XMISSION OF HIS INTENTIONS CONSTITUTED RECEPTION OF HIS INTENTIONS. THE FACT THAT I DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE HIS ANNOUNCED INTENTIONS (OR ANY OF THE GND RADIO CALLS); MIGHT HAVE SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY THAT I WAS UNAWARE OF HIS PRESENCE AND INTENTIONS; AND THAT A STANDARD PATTERN MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN ORDER. STILL; IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AS NECESSARY AS IT TURNED OUT TO BE.