Narrative:

I was working local position at lawton tower and received a VFR inbound from ft sill approach. Runway 35 was active and the VFR aircraft was an small aircraft inbound from the northeast for a right downwind. Additional traffic in the air traffic area was an MTR on a PAR approach to henry post army airfield, 4 mi north of lawton. The PAR final is along the east side of the runway at lawton municipal (opposite direction to right downwind at lawton). Both aircraft had been handled by ft sill approach and they had advised me of the PAR traffic. Lawton tower does not have any type radar and must rely on visual contact to provide positive separation. I was looking for the small aircraft and had told him about the MTR but could not provide positive separation because I did not have either aircraft in sight initially. I finally saw the small aircraft as he entered right downwind and a few seconds later saw the MTR. The aircraft were head-on, less than a mi at approximately the same altitude. The MTR took evasive action and the small aircraft saw him in that maneuver. Since ft sill had worked both aircraft, given me the VFR inbound on the small aircraft and advised me of the MTR traffic, I believed they had resolved any possible conflict. Discussions with ft sill revealed that the aircraft were being worked by separate controllers who did not coordination within their facility. If lawton tower had a BRITE radar I would have been able to point out the traffic to the small aircraft and avoided a situation requiring evasive action.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MTR HAD AIRBORNE CONFLICT WITH SMA IN ADJACENT ARPT AIRSPACE EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING LCL POS AT LAWTON TWR AND RECEIVED A VFR INBOUND FROM FT SILL APCH. RWY 35 WAS ACTIVE AND THE VFR ACFT WAS AN SMA INBOUND FROM THE NE FOR A R DOWNWIND. ADDITIONAL TFC IN THE ATA WAS AN MTR ON A PAR APCH TO HENRY POST ARMY AIRFIELD, 4 MI N OF LAWTON. THE PAR FINAL IS ALONG THE E SIDE OF THE RWY AT LAWTON MUNICIPAL (OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO R DOWNWIND AT LAWTON). BOTH ACFT HAD BEEN HANDLED BY FT SILL APCH AND THEY HAD ADVISED ME OF THE PAR TFC. LAWTON TWR DOES NOT HAVE ANY TYPE RADAR AND MUST RELY ON VISUAL CONTACT TO PROVIDE POSITIVE SEPARATION. I WAS LOOKING FOR THE SMA AND HAD TOLD HIM ABOUT THE MTR BUT COULD NOT PROVIDE POSITIVE SEPARATION BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE EITHER ACFT IN SIGHT INITIALLY. I FINALLY SAW THE SMA AS HE ENTERED R DOWNWIND AND A FEW SECONDS LATER SAW THE MTR. THE ACFT WERE HEAD-ON, LESS THAN A MI AT APPROX THE SAME ALT. THE MTR TOOK EVASIVE ACTION AND THE SMA SAW HIM IN THAT MANEUVER. SINCE FT SILL HAD WORKED BOTH ACFT, GIVEN ME THE VFR INBOUND ON THE SMA AND ADVISED ME OF THE MTR TFC, I BELIEVED THEY HAD RESOLVED ANY POSSIBLE CONFLICT. DISCUSSIONS WITH FT SILL REVEALED THAT THE ACFT WERE BEING WORKED BY SEPARATE CTLRS WHO DID NOT COORD WITHIN THEIR FACILITY. IF LAWTON TWR HAD A BRITE RADAR I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT THE TFC TO THE SMA AND AVOIDED A SITUATION REQUIRING EVASIVE ACTION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.