Narrative:

We have a BRITE radar that displays primary and secondary targets only. We have been instructed by FAA management provide visual separation between departing IFR aircraft and arriving IFR aircraft only if we are in radio contact with the IFR arrival aircraft or the radar controller specifies to provide visual separation. This procedure does not comply with ATC manual 7110.6J reference visual approach separation. Most, if not almost always, the radar approach controller will not specify otherwise. There have been numerous sits where this tower was not in radio contact with the IFR arrs until the arrs were two mi from the approach end of the runway with traffic departing on the opposite runway. The last conflict that I can remember occurred on 4/thu/98 at XA20L where an E120 (an air carrier) was cleared for takeoff runway 29 with an H25 (a cpr aircraft) inbound to runway 11. Aircraft missed each other by about one mi. However, this could have resulted in a midair collision since the local controller had no knowledge of the IFR arrival aircraft and was not in radio contact with the IFR arrival. There have been a number of these conflicts (operation errors) that have not been reported because management will blame it on the controller and not the procedure. There are only two phrases for a local controller to know concerning separation involving an IFR departure and an IFR arrival, 'hold for release' or 'released subject your discretion, reference (arrival aircraft),' otherwise the IFR departure is released regardless of radio contact with the IFR arrival. Addressing these issues with FAA management is a waste of time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ATCT LCL CTLR REPORTS THAT AN ACR E120 WAS CLRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 29 AS A CPR HS25 WAS ON FINAL APCH TO RWY 11. THE ACFT CAME WITHIN ONE MI OF EACH OTHER. THE CTLR COMPLAINS ABOUT THE POLICY THAT ALLOWS OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS OPERATIONS WITHOUT RADIO CONTACT WITH THE PRINCIPLE FLCS.

Narrative: WE HAVE A BRITE RADAR THAT DISPLAYS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TARGETS ONLY. WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED BY FAA MANAGEMENT PROVIDE VISUAL SEPARATION BETWEEN DEPARTING IFR ACFT AND ARRIVING IFR ACFT ONLY IF WE ARE IN RADIO CONTACT WITH THE IFR ARR ACFT OR THE RADAR CTLR SPECIFIES TO PROVIDE VISUAL SEPARATION. THIS PROC DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ATC MANUAL 7110.6J REF VISUAL APCH SEPARATION. MOST, IF NOT ALMOST ALWAYS, THE RADAR APCH CTLR WILL NOT SPECIFY OTHERWISE. THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS SITS WHERE THIS TWR WAS NOT IN RADIO CONTACT WITH THE IFR ARRS UNTIL THE ARRS WERE TWO MI FROM THE APCH END OF THE RWY WITH TFC DEPARTING ON THE OPPOSITE RWY. THE LAST CONFLICT THAT I CAN REMEMBER OCCURRED ON 4/THU/98 AT XA20L WHERE AN E120 (AN ACR) WAS CLRED FOR TKOF RWY 29 WITH AN H25 (A CPR ACFT) INBOUND TO RWY 11. ACFT MISSED EACH OTHER BY ABOUT ONE MI. HOWEVER, THIS COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A MIDAIR COLLISION SINCE THE LCL CTLR HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE IFR ARR ACFT AND WAS NOT IN RADIO CONTACT WITH THE IFR ARR. THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF THESE CONFLICTS (OP ERRORS) THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REPORTED BECAUSE MANAGEMENT WILL BLAME IT ON THE CTLR AND NOT THE PROC. THERE ARE ONLY TWO PHRASES FOR A LCL CTLR TO KNOW CONCERNING SEPARATION INVOLVING AN IFR DEP AND AN IFR ARR, 'HOLD FOR RELEASE' OR 'RELEASED SUBJECT YOUR DISCRETION, REFERENCE (ARR ACFT),' OTHERWISE THE IFR DEP IS RELEASED REGARDLESS OF RADIO CONTACT WITH THE IFR ARR. ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES WITH FAA MANAGEMENT IS A WASTE OF TIME.

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.