Lax tower controller reported an airborne conflict between a departure and an arrival aircraft. Oppo...

Attributes
ACN	1416521
Time
Date	201612
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	LAX.Tower
State Reference	CA
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Widebody Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Climb
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Traffic Management
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 10
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Track / Heading All Types

Narrative:

Aircraft X needed runway 07R for departure due to prevailing east winds. I coordinated with sct and ZLA to create a space on the runway 25L final for aircraft X to depart runway 07R. Lax tower agreed to provide visual separation between the runway 07R departure and traffic on final to runway 24R. The runway 07R departure was given an immediate right turn away from the runway 24R final. When aircraft X was in the initial climb just after becoming airborne; aircraft Y (on final runway 24R) received a TCAS RA. It was subsequently determined that aircraft Y had not been advised of the departing aircraft X. It was also determined that I did not use the term 'opposite direction departure' in my coordination with sct and ZLA. This was a phraseology error uncovered while investigating the RA. There was no misunderstanding created by my oversight; as all parties involved in the coordination understood what was happening. That said; the requirement is to specifically state 'opposite direction departure;' and I overlooked that in the process of my coordination.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LAX Tower Controller reported an airborne conflict between a departure and an arrival aircraft. Opposite direction coordination departure procedures were not properly utilized.

Narrative: Aircraft X needed Runway 07R for departure due to prevailing east winds. I coordinated with SCT and ZLA to create a space on the Runway 25L final for Aircraft X to depart Runway 07R. LAX Tower agreed to provide visual separation between the Runway 07R departure and traffic on final to Runway 24R. The Runway 07R departure was given an immediate right turn away from the Runway 24R final. When Aircraft X was in the initial climb just after becoming airborne; Aircraft Y (on final Runway 24R) received a TCAS RA. It was subsequently determined that Aircraft Y had not been advised of the departing Aircraft X. It was also determined that I did not use the term 'Opposite Direction Departure' in my coordination with SCT and ZLA. This was a phraseology error uncovered while investigating the RA. There was no misunderstanding created by my oversight; as all parties involved in the coordination understood what was happening. That said; the requirement is to specifically state 'Opposite direction departure;' and I overlooked that in the process of my coordination.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

Lax tower controller reported an airborne conflict between a departure and an arrival aircraft. Opposite direction coordination departure procedures were not properly utilized.