Narrative:

Known opposite direction traffic was not exchanged between each other even though controller workload and complexity allowed. See reference FAA 7110.65(H) pilot/controller glossary, TA and 7110.65(H) chapter 3 paragraph 3-1 note. Responsibilities. Satcs, local controller inattentive to duties. This led to a non-issuance of opposite direction, known traffic. Nwbound IFR arrival commuter visually encountered an unexpected opposite direction VFR sebound departure. The departure passed in close proximity to the IFR nwbound arrival. Neither the IFR arrival, nor the VFR departure were made aware of each other operating in the same vicinity. Both were being worked by satcs local controller. IFR pilot maintained his own visual separation with the VFR departure and queried tower local about traffic he had just observed that passed close to his aircraft. The opposite direction VFR said he didn't think it was close. No corrective action was taken by tower local controller. Captain of the commuter aircraft called the tower to discuss the event and find out why he was not made aware of the departure. Contents of the phone conversation are not known to me at this time. Had traffic been exchanged between the 2 aircraft (which workload permitted), the nwbound IFR arrival and the sebound departure would have been aware of each other. They would have been looking for each other and wouldn't have been taken back when they saw each other. Not only would the element of surprise have been eliminated, but an embarrassing phone inquiry could have been avoided as well. Had the local control satcs been more attentive to his responsibilities (which workload permitted) this entire situation could have been avoided. Exchange of traffic in a non-radar environment is very essential to positive control.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INBOUND COMMUTER HAD CONFLICT WITH OPPOSITE DIRECTION OUTBOUND VFR ACFT. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT USED.

Narrative: KNOWN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC WAS NOT EXCHANGED BTWN EACH OTHER EVEN THOUGH CTLR WORKLOAD AND COMPLEXITY ALLOWED. SEE REF FAA 7110.65(H) PLT/CTLR GLOSSARY, TA AND 7110.65(H) CHAPTER 3 PARAGRAPH 3-1 NOTE. RESPONSIBILITIES. SATCS, LCL CTLR INATTENTIVE TO DUTIES. THIS LED TO A NON-ISSUANCE OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION, KNOWN TFC. NWBOUND IFR ARR COMMUTER VISUALLY ENCOUNTERED AN UNEXPECTED OPPOSITE DIRECTION VFR SEBOUND DEP. THE DEP PASSED IN CLOSE PROX TO THE IFR NWBOUND ARR. NEITHER THE IFR ARR, NOR THE VFR DEP WERE MADE AWARE OF EACH OTHER OPERATING IN THE SAME VICINITY. BOTH WERE BEING WORKED BY SATCS LCL CTLR. IFR PLT MAINTAINED HIS OWN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH THE VFR DEP AND QUERIED TWR LCL ABOUT TFC HE HAD JUST OBSERVED THAT PASSED CLOSE TO HIS ACFT. THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION VFR SAID HE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS CLOSE. NO CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN BY TWR LCL CTLR. CAPT OF THE COMMUTER ACFT CALLED THE TWR TO DISCUSS THE EVENT AND FIND OUT WHY HE WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE DEP. CONTENTS OF THE PHONE CONVERSATION ARE NOT KNOWN TO ME AT THIS TIME. HAD TFC BEEN EXCHANGED BTWN THE 2 ACFT (WHICH WORKLOAD PERMITTED), THE NWBOUND IFR ARR AND THE SEBOUND DEP WOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF EACH OTHER. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR EACH OTHER AND WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN TAKEN BACK WHEN THEY SAW EACH OTHER. NOT ONLY WOULD THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED, BUT AN EMBARRASSING PHONE INQUIRY COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED AS WELL. HAD THE LCL CTL SATCS BEEN MORE ATTENTIVE TO HIS RESPONSIBILITIES (WHICH WORKLOAD PERMITTED) THIS ENTIRE SIT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. EXCHANGE OF TFC IN A NON-RADAR ENVIRONMENT IS VERY ESSENTIAL TO POSITIVE CTL.

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.