Narrative:

Fll was utilizing runway 9L for its primary arrival runway. As we approached abeam the airport, and were assigned a wbound vector taking us on an extended left downwind for runway 9L at fll, another aircraft (a cessna citation) behind us, approaching the airport from the east, requested to land on the opposite end of runway 9L, which was runway 27R. We were finally vectored onto the final approach course for the ILS approach runway 9L, after an extended vector, to give 'preference' to the other aircraft so as to allow it to land opposite the advertised traffic flow, on runway 27R. Passing the OM/FAF, I asked the tower what our missed approach instructions would be, now that we were head-to-head with the opposite direction traffic, landing on the same runway that we were set up to land on! I was concerned that should either aircraft have to go around, there would be the potential to hit each other, should either of us go around on a runway heading! The tower controller apparently 'missed the point,' and instructed us to fly the missed approach 'as promised,' which was 'runway heading, and climb to 3000 ft,' again, if we both went around, flying runway heading, there would be a potential conflict! As it turned out, opposite direction traffic cleared the runway when we were about 2.5 mi from touchdown on runway 9L. Summary: to me, this was a potential conflict situation, and should not have happened. Head-to-head traffic, landing the same runway, has the potential to produce an accident/incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER BEING DELAY VECTORED FOR OPPOSITE DIRECTION LNDG CITATION TFC, FLL CTLR UNABLE TO ISSUE AND UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF B757-200 QUESTIONS OF MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS IF ONE OR BOTH ACFT EXECUTE A MISSED APCH.

Narrative: FLL WAS UTILIZING RWY 9L FOR ITS PRIMARY ARR RWY. AS WE APCHED ABEAM THE ARPT, AND WERE ASSIGNED A WBOUND VECTOR TAKING US ON AN EXTENDED L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 9L AT FLL, ANOTHER ACFT (A CESSNA CITATION) BEHIND US, APCHING THE ARPT FROM THE E, REQUESTED TO LAND ON THE OPPOSITE END OF RWY 9L, WHICH WAS RWY 27R. WE WERE FINALLY VECTORED ONTO THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR THE ILS APCH RWY 9L, AFTER AN EXTENDED VECTOR, TO GIVE 'PREFERENCE' TO THE OTHER ACFT SO AS TO ALLOW IT TO LAND OPPOSITE THE ADVERTISED TFC FLOW, ON RWY 27R. PASSING THE OM/FAF, I ASKED THE TWR WHAT OUR MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS WOULD BE, NOW THAT WE WERE HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC, LNDG ON THE SAME RWY THAT WE WERE SET UP TO LAND ON! I WAS CONCERNED THAT SHOULD EITHER ACFT HAVE TO GO AROUND, THERE WOULD BE THE POTENTIAL TO HIT EACH OTHER, SHOULD EITHER OF US GO AROUND ON A RWY HDG! THE TWR CTLR APPARENTLY 'MISSED THE POINT,' AND INSTRUCTED US TO FLY THE MISSED APCH 'AS PROMISED,' WHICH WAS 'RWY HDG, AND CLB TO 3000 FT,' AGAIN, IF WE BOTH WENT AROUND, FLYING RWY HDG, THERE WOULD BE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT! AS IT TURNED OUT, OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC CLRED THE RWY WHEN WE WERE ABOUT 2.5 MI FROM TOUCHDOWN ON RWY 9L. SUMMARY: TO ME, THIS WAS A POTENTIAL CONFLICT SIT, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. HEAD-TO-HEAD TFC, LNDG THE SAME RWY, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE AN ACCIDENT/INCIDENT.

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.