Narrative:

Air carrier X was on approach to runway 16. Atx Y requested a runway 34 departure. Since air carrier X was not yet in sight and no factor at the time, runway 34 was approved. Both aircraft were on IFR flight plans. Atx Y was released off runway 34, subject air carrier X, which center said was 10 mi north of pzd VOR (18 north of airport). Atx Y was ready to go and in position on runway 34 at that time, but center had not switched air carrier X to the tower. When air carrier X was 5 mi out, he switched to tower on his own, while monitoring the center. The local controller exchanged traffic and was able to separate the opposite direction aircraft. Air carrier X was officially switched to the tower on a 2 mi final, well inside the air traffic area. This is contrary to the letters of agreement and ATP 7110.65. Due to the nature of the opposite direction traffic, it was extremely hazardous. Air carrier X had cautiously switched on his own, because of a similar previous error by center that morning, on approach to albany. It was also the same pilot involved in a NASA report submitted earlier on 11/xx/89. All these incidents concerned the center not switching traffic at the appropriate time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ARR ACR WAS GIVEN A LATE FREQ CHANGE TO THE TWR WHILE AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION DEP WAS RELEASED.

Narrative: ACR X WAS ON APCH TO RWY 16. ATX Y REQUESTED A RWY 34 DEP. SINCE ACR X WAS NOT YET IN SIGHT AND NO FACTOR AT THE TIME, RWY 34 WAS APPROVED. BOTH ACFT WERE ON IFR FLT PLANS. ATX Y WAS RELEASED OFF RWY 34, SUBJECT ACR X, WHICH CENTER SAID WAS 10 MI N OF PZD VOR (18 N OF ARPT). ATX Y WAS READY TO GO AND IN POSITION ON RWY 34 AT THAT TIME, BUT CENTER HAD NOT SWITCHED ACR X TO THE TWR. WHEN ACR X WAS 5 MI OUT, HE SWITCHED TO TWR ON HIS OWN, WHILE MONITORING THE CENTER. THE LCL CTLR EXCHANGED TFC AND WAS ABLE TO SEPARATE THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION ACFT. ACR X WAS OFFICIALLY SWITCHED TO THE TWR ON A 2 MI FINAL, WELL INSIDE THE ATA. THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE LETTERS OF AGREEMENT AND ATP 7110.65. DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC, IT WAS EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS. ACR X HAD CAUTIOUSLY SWITCHED ON HIS OWN, BECAUSE OF A SIMILAR PREVIOUS ERROR BY CENTER THAT MORNING, ON APCH TO ALBANY. IT WAS ALSO THE SAME PLT INVOLVED IN A NASA REPORT SUBMITTED EARLIER ON 11/XX/89. ALL THESE INCIDENTS CONCERNED THE CENTER NOT SWITCHING TFC AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.