Narrative:

I had an opposite direction request. What was coordinated was after aircraft X I would have an opposite direction arrival for runway 16 since runway 34 was the runway in use. I did approve it because we have a waiver to allow opposite direction departures/arrivals. Aircraft X was on about a 4 to 5 mile final for runway 34 when aircraft Y was on a offset north east straight in for runway 16. Technically he wasn't on base or on final so it's a kind of gray area on whether this is even legal since our waiver doesn't allow a base turn until the opposite arrival is on the ground. N90 had control of aircraft Y until aircraft X was on the ground. When aircraft X landed and rolled out to the end aircraft Y turned a 3 mile final and landed without incident. I doubt we did this opposite direction properly as per the waiver.opposite direction operations were deemed unsafe so why would they give a waiver for this operation? What benefit does it actually have unless in an emergency? Technically we are supposed to ask if it is operationally necessary. Did N90 ask if its operationally necessary? Was it operationally necessary? We get requests for departures all the time for opposite direction departures for runway 34 when advertising runway 16 and runway 16 when advertising runway 34. Is this really operationally necessary? All departures should load their planes and not pack it completely so that they require a certain runway because of a slight decline or incline that will barely get their numbers right for departure. If you can't take runway 34 then don't ask for runway 16. I have made other reports about this culture that only N90 seems to do and why are we doing opposite direction operations when most of the country is not? Can you make this airport even more complex by continuing to not do anything with airspace redesign? This waiver is as silly as not allowing an intersection departure to maintain visual with wake turbulence but a touch and go can despite him facing an opposite direction from the aircraft departing. The fact I can tell someone to maintain visual with wake turbulence is laughable (who came up with that?). Oh and great job on the category a to F wake turbulence. How can a C172 and C750 be in the same category? Didn't want to make a category G? So I can say recategorization preparation a to G were failures now we have a new recat preparation H category? Or because there are so many different close to small types we didn't have anyone willing to do the work so we made a f+ category that doesn't show up on the inbound flight strip and put the onus on the controller to figure out a f and f+? Anyway opposite direction waivers should be done away with so let's start with that. It is unsafe!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HPN Tower Controller reported an opposite direction operation was conducted which was not in compliance with directives.

Narrative: I had an opposite direction request. What was coordinated was after Aircraft X I would have an opposite direction arrival for Runway 16 since Runway 34 was the runway in use. I did approve it because we have a waiver to allow opposite direction departures/arrivals. Aircraft X was on about a 4 to 5 mile final for Runway 34 when Aircraft Y was on a offset north east straight in for Runway 16. Technically he wasn't on base or on final so it's a kind of gray area on whether this is even legal since our waiver doesn't allow a base turn until the opposite arrival is on the ground. N90 had control of Aircraft Y until Aircraft X was on the ground. When Aircraft X landed and rolled out to the end Aircraft Y turned a 3 mile final and landed without incident. I doubt we did this opposite direction properly as per the waiver.Opposite direction operations were deemed unsafe so why would they give a waiver for this operation? What benefit does it actually have unless in an emergency? Technically we are supposed to ask if it is operationally necessary. Did N90 ask if its operationally necessary? Was it operationally necessary? We get requests for departures all the time for opposite direction departures for Runway 34 when advertising Runway 16 and Runway 16 when advertising Runway 34. Is this really operationally necessary? All departures should load their planes and not pack it completely so that they require a certain runway because of a slight decline or incline that will barely get their numbers right for departure. If you can't take Runway 34 then don't ask for Runway 16. I have made other reports about this culture that only N90 seems to do and why are we doing opposite direction operations when most of the country is not? Can you make this airport even more complex by continuing to not do anything with airspace redesign? This waiver is as silly as not allowing an intersection departure to maintain visual with wake turbulence but a touch and go can despite him facing an opposite direction from the aircraft departing. The fact I can tell someone to Maintain Visual with Wake Turbulence is laughable (who came up with that?). Oh and great job on the category A to F wake turbulence. How can a C172 and C750 be in the same category? Didn't want to make a category G? So I can say recategorization preparation A to G were failures now we have a new recat preparation H category? Or because there are so many different close to small types we didn't have anyone willing to do the work so we made a f+ category that doesn't show up on the inbound flight strip and put the onus on the controller to figure out a f and f+? Anyway opposite direction waivers should be done away with so let's start with that. IT IS UNSAFE!

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.