POTENTIAL CONFLICT BTWN 2 C172'S; OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC; SAME RWY DURING A NIGHT OP AT LWV.

Narrative

ACFT #1 WAS INBOUND TO LWV AND CALLED A 10 MI FINAL FOR RWY 36. NO OTHER ACFT WERE OBSERVED AT THAT TIME. ACFT #1 CONTINUED INBOUND AND CALLED A 5 1/2 MI FINAL; NO OTHER ACFT WERE HEARD ON CTAF OR OBSERVED. ON APPROX A 1/2 MI FINAL; ACFT #1 OBSERVED THE LNDG LIGHT OF ACFT #2; WHICH WAS AT A HIGHER ALT. NO RADIO CALLS WERE HEARD BY ACFT #1 FROM ACFT #2. AS ACFT #1 ENTERED A FLARE FOR TOUCHDOWN; ACFT #2 SWITCHED TO LAND ON RWY 27 INSTEAD OF RWY 18. AFTER ACFT #1 TAXIED TO THE RAMP; ACFT #2 TAXIED UP NEXT TO ACFT #1. THE PLT OF ACFT #2 APCHED THE PLT OF ACFT #1 AND IDENTED HIMSELF AS A FEDERAL OFFICER AND DEMANDED TO SEE THE PLT CERTIFICATE OF THE PLT OF ACFT #1. THE PLT OF ACFT #2 THEN BEGAN CURSING AT THE PLT OF ACFT #1; SAYING THAT PLT #1 IGNORED HIS RADIO CALLS AND PURPOSELY FORCED HIM TO HAVE TO DIVERT TO RWY 27. AT THAT TIME; THE LINE SVC PERSONNEL CAME OUT AND ASKED WHAT THE PROB WAS. PLT #2 ASKED THE LINE MAN IF HE KNEW 'THIS EXPLETIVE PERSON' AND THEN THE LINE PERSON SAID THAT HE HEARD BOTH PLTS ON THE RADIO. THE PLT OF ACFT #2 COPIED THE CERTIFICATE NUMBER OF PLT #1 AND THEN LEFT. POSSIBLE CAUSE OF ACFT DISPUTE: 1) MALFUNCTION OF RADIO IN ACFT #2. 2) IMPROPER RADIO SETTINGS IN ACFT #1. 3) NEITHER ACFT FLYING A TFC PATTERN. POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: 1) DOUBLECHK RADIO SETTINGS BEFORE APCH. 2) FLY A TFC PATTERN VERSUS DOING A STRAIGHT-IN. 3) BE AWARE THAT THE LOWER ACFT HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. 4) BEHAVE IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER WHEN ADDRESSING AN ISSUE WITH ANOTHER PLT.