Narrative:

Our aircraft was on a training flight, making an ILS approach to runway 13L at chico, ca. We were inbound from gerbe intersection to norde intersection, having been handed off from oak center to chico tower. We requested from the tower to be 'cleared for the option' and were told by the tower controller 'I have no problem with any of that, report 3 mile final.' inbound from norde we heard tower talking to an aircraft on the ground believed to be an aviat husky, who requested takeoff clearance on runway 31R, the opposite direction of the one we were approaching. Tower advised the other aircraft that there was an aerostar inbound on the localizer to runway 13L. We neglected to report 3 mile final. As we were about to touch down on runway 13L tower cleared the husky for takeoff on runway 31R. At touchdown, safety pilot asked the tower to confirm that we had been cleared for the option. Realizing the conflict the tower cancelled the husky takeoff clearance while we were taking evasive action toward the side of the runway. No further action was necessary by either aircraft, and we exited the runway. Tower remarked to us 'aircraft X you realize that that was very dangerous.' we acknowledged his transmission without comment. We subsequently made two more approachs without incident. Returning later in the day for further practice approachs, we were again 'cleared for the option' on runway 13L with opposing traffic in the pattern, in this instance an air tanker S-2 on VFR approach for runway 31R. This time the other aircraft broke off his approach to circle and re-enter the pattern without being told to do so by the tower. Had he not done so, another dangerous situation would have arisen because again, near touchdown, either a landing or missed approach on our part would have put us into the path of the opposite direction landing aircraft. While we were negligent in the first instance in not reporting a 3 mile final, we question the judgement of the tower controller clearing an aircraft for takeoff in the opposite direction without clear knowledge of the inbound aircraft's position and without so notifying the inbound aircraft. There seems to be a casual attitude in chico as to opposite direction traffic on their runways. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the controller had cleared tail dragger traffic for takeoff while they were touching down on the opposite end of the same runway. He said the frequency was split with ground control. The pilot did not contact the tower after landing and nothing was said by the controller when they departed. Returning later in the day to conduct touch and goes, the reporter said they had a similar encounter with an S-2 tanker on final to the opposite end of the runway. Reporter said the controllers at controller in charge seem to have a laid back attitude.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CIC ATCT LCL CTLR CLRS ACFT FOR TKOF WITH ACFT LNDG ON OPPOSITE END.

Narrative: OUR ACFT WAS ON A TRAINING FLT, MAKING AN ILS APCH TO RWY 13L AT CHICO, CA. WE WERE INBOUND FROM GERBE INTXN TO NORDE INTXN, HAVING BEEN HANDED OFF FROM OAK CTR TO CHICO TWR. WE REQUESTED FROM THE TWR TO BE 'CLRED FOR THE OPTION' AND WERE TOLD BY THE TWR CTLR 'I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THAT, RPT 3 MILE FINAL.' INBOUND FROM NORDE WE HEARD TWR TALKING TO AN ACFT ON THE GND BELIEVED TO BE AN AVIAT HUSKY, WHO REQUESTED TAKEOFF CLRNC ON RWY 31R, THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THE ONE WE WERE APCHING. TWR ADVISED THE OTHER ACFT THAT THERE WAS AN AEROSTAR INBOUND ON THE LOCALIZER TO RWY 13L. WE NEGLECTED TO RPT 3 MILE FINAL. AS WE WERE ABOUT TO TOUCH DOWN ON RWY 13L TWR CLRED THE HUSKY FOR TAKEOFF ON RWY 31R. AT TOUCHDOWN, SAFETY PLT ASKED THE TWR TO CONFIRM THAT WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR THE OPTION. REALIZING THE CONFLICT THE TWR CANCELLED THE HUSKY TAKEOFF CLRNC WHILE WE WERE TAKING EVASIVE ACTION TOWARD THE SIDE OF THE RWY. NO FURTHER ACTION WAS NECESSARY BY EITHER ACFT, AND WE EXITED THE RWY. TWR REMARKED TO US 'ACFT X YOU REALIZE THAT THAT WAS VERY DANGEROUS.' WE ACKNOWLEDGED HIS TRANSMISSION WITHOUT COMMENT. WE SUBSEQUENTLY MADE TWO MORE APCHS WITHOUT INCIDENT. RETURNING LATER IN THE DAY FOR FURTHER PRACTICE APCHS, WE WERE AGAIN 'CLRED FOR THE OPTION' ON RWY 13L WITH OPPOSING TFC IN THE PATTERN, IN THIS INSTANCE AN AIR TANKER S-2 ON VFR APCH FOR RWY 31R. THIS TIME THE OTHER ACFT BROKE OFF HIS APCH TO CIRCLE AND RE-ENTER THE PATTERN WITHOUT BEING TOLD TO DO SO BY THE TWR. HAD HE NOT DONE SO, ANOTHER DANGEROUS SIT WOULD HAVE ARISEN BECAUSE AGAIN, NEAR TOUCHDOWN, EITHER A LNDG OR MISSED APCH ON OUR PART WOULD HAVE PUT US INTO THE PATH OF THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION LNDG ACFT. WHILE WE WERE NEGLIGENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN NOT RPTING A 3 MILE FINAL, WE QUESTION THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TWR CTLR CLRING AN ACFT FOR TAKEOFF IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION WITHOUT CLR KNOWLEDGE OF THE INBOUND ACFT'S POSITION AND WITHOUT SO NOTIFYING THE INBOUND ACFT. THERE SEEMS TO BE A CASUAL ATTITUDE IN CHICO AS TO OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC ON THEIR RWYS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE CTLR HAD CLRED TAIL DRAGGER TFC FOR TKOF WHILE THEY WERE TOUCHING DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SAME RWY. HE SAID THE FREQUENCY WAS SPLIT WITH GND CTL. THE PLT DID NOT CONTACT THE TWR AFTER LNDG AND NOTHING WAS SAID BY THE CTLR WHEN THEY DEPARTED. RETURNING LATER IN THE DAY TO CONDUCT TOUCH AND GOES, THE RPTR SAID THEY HAD A SIMILAR ENCOUNTER WITH AN S-2 TANKER ON FINAL TO THE OPPOSITE END OF THE RWY. RPTR SAID THE CTLRS AT CIC SEEM TO HAVE A LAID BACK ATTITUDE.

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.