Pilot complains about traffic landing opposite direction.

Attributes
ACN	122873
Time
Date	198909
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : roc
State Reference	NY
Altitude	msl bound lower : 600 msl bound upper : 600
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : roc tower : cle
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller non radar : 6 controller radar : 3
ASRS Report	122873
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Air carrier X on visibility approach to runway 22. Air carrier Y was second to land opp direction on a visibility approach to runway 04. When air carrier X was over the runway 22 landing threshold, air carrier Y was on a 6 mi final with traffic opp direction in sight. The captain of air carrier X called me later to complain that it was an unsafe situation. He said that if he had to go around, he would have had to make an abnormal procedure and a severe and immediate turn to avoid traffic. He felt the operation at night should not be done. I tried to explain that air carrier Y had him in sight, and was in a position to maneuver if needed, both aircraft were in radio contact with the tower (local controller) in sufficient time to avoid any possible problems. The air carrier X captain did not agree and interpreted my explanation as a careless attitude. Everything does look closer at night. There really is no way to avoid the questions other than not to allow opp direction approachs simultaneously.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT COMPLAINS ABOUT TRAFFIC LNDG OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

Narrative: ACR X ON VIS APCH TO RWY 22. ACR Y WAS SECOND TO LAND OPP DIRECTION ON A VIS APCH TO RWY 04. WHEN ACR X WAS OVER THE RWY 22 LNDG THRESHOLD, ACR Y WAS ON A 6 MI FINAL WITH TFC OPP DIRECTION IN SIGHT. THE CAPT OF ACR X CALLED ME LATER TO COMPLAIN THAT IT WAS AN UNSAFE SITUATION. HE SAID THAT IF HE HAD TO GO AROUND, HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO MAKE AN ABNORMAL PROC AND A SEVERE AND IMMEDIATE TURN TO AVOID TFC. HE FELT THE OPERATION AT NIGHT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT ACR Y HAD HIM IN SIGHT, AND WAS IN A POS TO MANEUVER IF NEEDED, BOTH ACFT WERE IN RADIO CONTACT WITH THE TWR (LCL CTLR) IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO AVOID ANY POSSIBLE PROBS. THE ACR X CAPT DID NOT AGREE AND INTERPRETED MY EXPLANATION AS A CARELESS ATTITUDE. EVERYTHING DOES LOOK CLOSER AT NIGHT. THERE REALLY IS NO WAY TO AVOID THE QUESTIONS OTHER THAN NOT TO ALLOW OPP DIRECTION APCHS SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.