Narrative:

Slc landing south runway 16R, runway 16L, runway 17. Slc tower coordination with departure sector for an opposite direction departure. No coordination with the sector that had traffic and airspace. The departing traffic was an air carrier flight. Visual separation was applied as departure turned west through arrival path. Resolution: slc tower should have effected coordination with tower and obtained a departure release from final, to ensure separation with arriving traffic. Had the departure sector not verbalized a pending opposite direction departure release, had he not left his control position to look at aircraft situation display, had he not given indication that the departure was rolling, we may not have been able to apply visual separation in a timely manner. Factors affecting quality of performance, perception, judgements: personally, as the final sector, anxiety from recent event with aircraft on feb/sat/04. Also, continued questionable applications of wake turbulence separation and standard separation applications between successive departures off slc. There seems to be a lack of knowledge of aircraft performance, WX conditions that may alter application of some procedures and directives. Lack of accountability for such failures. Supplemental information from acn 610827: airport was on a south flow. Automatic releases were given to the tower for runway 16L, runway 16R and runway 17 departures. I was working the departure sector. Local controller called and stated 'aircraft is looking for a runway 34R departure, can you approve it?' I stated 'I can approve it.' I emphasized the word 'I' in order to clue the local controller that he would need to get approval from both arrival controllers. I went over to the 2 arrival controllers and let them know what local controller had requested approval (apreq) with me. I assumed that local did not have automatic releases for an opposite direction departure. Local controller launched the heavy air carrier flight with a crj, flight X, on about a 7 mi final for runway 17. The aircraft Y made a left turn off the departure end of the runway across the final of runway 16R. Local controller xferred communications to me and I stopped the aircraft X at 8000 ft (he was originally climbing to 10000 ft). There was another aircraft at 11000 ft abeam the airport and the final controller had control for descent. I then called the final controller and let him know about the aircraft X and his altitude. As far as I know, separation was never lost.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: S56 CTLR QUESTIONS TWR RELEASE OF ACFT INTO HIS OR HER AIRSPACE WITHOUT COORD.

Narrative: SLC LNDG S RWY 16R, RWY 16L, RWY 17. SLC TWR COORD WITH DEP SECTOR FOR AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION DEP. NO COORD WITH THE SECTOR THAT HAD TFC AND AIRSPACE. THE DEPARTING TFC WAS AN ACR FLT. VISUAL SEPARATION WAS APPLIED AS DEP TURNED W THROUGH ARR PATH. RESOLUTION: SLC TWR SHOULD HAVE EFFECTED COORD WITH TWR AND OBTAINED A DEP RELEASE FROM FINAL, TO ENSURE SEPARATION WITH ARRIVING TFC. HAD THE DEP SECTOR NOT VERBALIZED A PENDING OPPOSITE DIRECTION DEP RELEASE, HAD HE NOT LEFT HIS CTL POS TO LOOK AT ACFT SIT DISPLAY, HAD HE NOT GIVEN INDICATION THAT THE DEP WAS ROLLING, WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO APPLY VISUAL SEPARATION IN A TIMELY MANNER. FACTORS AFFECTING QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE, PERCEPTION, JUDGEMENTS: PERSONALLY, AS THE FINAL SECTOR, ANXIETY FROM RECENT EVENT WITH ACFT ON FEB/SAT/04. ALSO, CONTINUED QUESTIONABLE APPLICATIONS OF WAKE TURB SEPARATION AND STANDARD SEPARATION APPLICATIONS BTWN SUCCESSIVE DEPS OFF SLC. THERE SEEMS TO BE A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF ACFT PERFORMANCE, WX CONDITIONS THAT MAY ALTER APPLICATION OF SOME PROCS AND DIRECTIVES. LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SUCH FAILURES. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 610827: ARPT WAS ON A S FLOW. AUTOMATIC RELEASES WERE GIVEN TO THE TWR FOR RWY 16L, RWY 16R AND RWY 17 DEPS. I WAS WORKING THE DEP SECTOR. LCL CTLR CALLED AND STATED 'ACFT IS LOOKING FOR A RWY 34R DEP, CAN YOU APPROVE IT?' I STATED 'I CAN APPROVE IT.' I EMPHASIZED THE WORD 'I' IN ORDER TO CLUE THE LCL CTLR THAT HE WOULD NEED TO GET APPROVAL FROM BOTH ARR CTLRS. I WENT OVER TO THE 2 ARR CTLRS AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT LCL CTLR HAD REQUESTED APPROVAL (APREQ) WITH ME. I ASSUMED THAT LCL DID NOT HAVE AUTOMATIC RELEASES FOR AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION DEP. LCL CTLR LAUNCHED THE HVY ACR FLT WITH A CRJ, FLT X, ON ABOUT A 7 MI FINAL FOR RWY 17. THE ACFT Y MADE A L TURN OFF THE DEP END OF THE RWY ACROSS THE FINAL OF RWY 16R. LCL CTLR XFERRED COMS TO ME AND I STOPPED THE ACFT X AT 8000 FT (HE WAS ORIGINALLY CLBING TO 10000 FT). THERE WAS ANOTHER ACFT AT 11000 FT ABEAM THE ARPT AND THE FINAL CTLR HAD CTL FOR DSCNT. I THEN CALLED THE FINAL CTLR AND LET HIM KNOW ABOUT THE ACFT X AND HIS ALT. AS FAR AS I KNOW, SEPARATION WAS NEVER LOST.

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.