Narrative:

[We were on a] visual approach arriving runway 06; departing runway 16. I was controller in charge in the tower when the event occurred. I was not given any notification that a C182 was IFR and on a practice instrument approach to runway 24 or that the aircraft was on an opposite direction practice approach to opposite direction landing traffic. I was aware that the C182 executed their missed approach over the numbers for runway 24 rather than at the published missed approach point. However; I was unaware of the crj traffic's go around at the same time. It was not until about 20-30 minutes later when I overheard the trainer talking to the trainee on local control about the situation that I figured out what had happened. Still after I gained knowledge of this; I still was under the impression that the C182 was VFR; not IFR. Nothing during this incident was brought to my attention to coordinate during; or handle after the fact. Obviously with these new and seemingly constant changing 'opposite direction; same runway' rules; the radar approach controller should have never let this situation happen in the first place. This incident goes to show a perfect example of 'worse case scenario;' or the situation happening at 'the wrong place at the wrong time' where one IFR aircraft executes a wrong missed approach at the same time an opposite direction IFR aircraft goes around without any instructions. While I should have been made aware of what was going on from the beginning; my recommendations would be that better communication should have been involved throughout.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower CIC described a conflict event when traffic conducting opposite direction operations initiated a go around and experienced a TCAS RA; indicating intra-facility ATC communications coordination as contributory.

Narrative: [We were on a] visual approach arriving Runway 06; departing Runway 16. I was CIC in the Tower when the event occurred. I was not given any notification that a C182 was IFR and on a practice instrument approach to Runway 24 or that the aircraft was on an opposite direction practice approach to opposite direction landing traffic. I was aware that the C182 executed their missed approach over the numbers for Runway 24 rather than at the published missed approach point. However; I was unaware of the CRJ traffic's go around at the same time. It was not until about 20-30 minutes later when I overheard the trainer talking to the trainee on Local Control about the situation that I figured out what had happened. Still after I gained knowledge of this; I still was under the impression that the C182 was VFR; not IFR. Nothing during this incident was brought to my attention to coordinate during; or handle after the fact. Obviously with these new and seemingly constant changing 'opposite direction; same runway' rules; the RADAR Approach Controller should have never let this situation happen in the first place. This incident goes to show a perfect example of 'worse case scenario;' or the situation happening at 'the wrong place at the wrong time' where one IFR aircraft executes a wrong missed approach at the same time an opposite direction IFR aircraft goes around without any instructions. While I should have been made aware of what was going on from the beginning; my recommendations would be that better communication should have been involved throughout.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.