Smf local controller reported of a violation of odo (opposite direction operation) policy. Aircraft ...

Narrative:

The airport configuration was northwind due to noise abatement procedures. Nct called me requesting odo for an aircraft to the north to land RWY16L. I had no departures at the time; so I approved the request. Looking to the south; I saw two arrivals; one to each runway (34L and 34R). The approach controller asked if I could provide visual separation between the two aircraft landing on the parallels (the 34L arrival and the odo to 16L). I had them in sight so I volunteered to provide visual.I looked at the distance between the two aircraft landing on the same runway and it was clear that the odo arrival would be inside the cutoff point (15 miles) unless he was delay vectored (which I figured approach would probably do to make it work). However; they did not delay vector him and aircraft Y was about 9 miles from the field when aircraft X was crossing the threshold for 34R. At no point was IFR separation lost; or did I feel the aircraft came into an unsafe proximity to one another; but the required cutoff was not met.I see this a lot when running odo; and I believe this is a case of rampant misapplication of the rules. These approach controllers seem to think that as long as the odo aircraft is not 'established on final' within 15 miles they are good. So they bring the arrival in as usual and just left them blow through final for a mile or two and then once the first aircraft lands; they establish the odo arrival on whatever distance final they may be on at the time. The wording; as I understand the rule is '15 miles from the airport'. That's not the same as a 15 mile final. This can be abused in this way; to basically not need to follow any of the requirements set forth in the national and local odo guidelines. I think if we are truly running these odo rules for safety sake; we all need to be applying the rules the same. And I don't personally know who is applying them correctly; me or them.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMF Local Controller reported of a violation of ODO (Opposite Direction Operation) policy. Aircraft were inside the 15 mile cutoff point. Reporter blamed the issue on NCT TRACON Controller for not following the policy.

Narrative: The airport configuration was northwind due to noise abatement procedures. NCT called me requesting ODO for an aircraft to the north to land RWY16L. I had no departures at the time; so I approved the request. Looking to the south; I saw two arrivals; one to each runway (34L and 34R). The approach controller asked if I could provide visual separation between the two aircraft landing on the parallels (the 34L arrival and the ODO to 16L). I had them in sight so I volunteered to provide visual.I looked at the distance between the two aircraft landing on the same runway and it was clear that the ODO arrival would be inside the cutoff point (15 miles) unless he was delay vectored (which I figured approach would probably do to make it work). However; they did not delay vector him and Aircraft Y was about 9 miles from the field when Aircraft X was crossing the threshold for 34R. At no point was IFR separation lost; or did I feel the aircraft came into an unsafe proximity to one another; but the required cutoff was not met.I see this a lot when running ODO; and I believe this is a case of rampant misapplication of the rules. These approach controllers seem to think that as long as the ODO aircraft is not 'established on final' within 15 miles they are good. So they bring the arrival in as usual and just left them blow through final for a mile or two and then once the first aircraft lands; they establish the ODO arrival on whatever distance final they may be on at the time. The wording; as I understand the rule is '15 miles from the airport'. That's not the same as a 15 mile final. This can be abused in this way; to basically not need to follow any of the requirements set forth in the National and Local ODO guidelines. I think if we are truly running these ODO rules for safety sake; we all need to be applying the rules the same. And I don't personally know who is applying them correctly; me or them.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

Attributes
ACN	1316878
Time
Date	201512
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	SMF.Airport
State Reference	CA
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Large Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Large Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Local
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 8.25
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Smf local controller reported of a violation of odo (opposite direction operation) policy. Aircraft were inside the 15 mile cutoff point. Reporter blamed the issue on nct TRACON controller for not following the policy.