Narrative:

Aircraft Y was instructed cleared for takeoff when aircraft X was 14 mile final. Aircraft Y was cleared to land upon check on. Each were told about opposite direction traffic. Aircraft Y did not immediately start departure roll. Once the aircraft began departure roll the aircraft X was between 11 and 12 mile final. Aircraft Y was 1/2 mile from the runway end when the aircraft X was 8 mile opposite direction final. Aircraft Y was told to expedite their west bound turn due to opposite direction traffic and they mentioned that they could but momentarily. I cancelled aircraft X's landing clearance and told him to continue for additional opposite direction traffic that was taxiing out. Aircraft X inbound was told to maintain slowest practical speed and replied that they were at that speed already. Aircraft Y was told to turn westbound due to opposite direction traffic again. At that time aircraft Y started turning northeast bound and the phrase 'turn left heading 273...' was used which was vectoring below the MVA (minimum vectoring altitude). Both aircraft had MSAW alarm triggered (ca/ca). Aircraft X then announced that they had traffic in sight. I was working local control and had control of both aircraft. I had both aircraft in sight throughout the entire procedure. VMC conditions. IFR separation was not lost; but vectoring below the MVA did occur.I should have done one of the following options and controlled the situation differently. I should have cancelled aircraft Y takeoff clearance but told them to line up and wait. I should have cancelled aircraft X's landing clearance and told to continue for traffic holding in position. This would have allowed me to do a procedure that we call the 'wrap;' and would have allowed for positive control.if I had not cancelled the takeoff clearance I should have told aircraft Y to 'fly heading 343 for traffic' because he was a slow climber and was unable to make terrain and do a westbound in front of aircraft X inbound for the opposite direction runway. He was a slow climber and would have off-set east of final and then when it was no factor; I should have told him to 'fly heading 273.' he was slow so he most likely would not have passed the 3.05 contour line. Another option would have been to cancel aircraft X's approach clearance and have him re-sequenced for a new approach. Aircraft Y would have flown the SID as published without interruption. Aircraft X would have been delayed; but it would have created a safer situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ASE Tower Local Controller trainee reported they vectored aircraft below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude after an aircraft departing opposite direction to an arrival turned in the wrong direction.

Narrative: Aircraft Y was instructed cleared for takeoff when Aircraft X was 14 mile final. Aircraft Y was cleared to land upon check on. Each were told about opposite direction traffic. Aircraft Y did not immediately start departure roll. Once the aircraft began departure roll the Aircraft X was between 11 and 12 mile final. Aircraft Y was 1/2 mile from the runway end when the Aircraft X was 8 mile opposite direction final. Aircraft Y was told to expedite their west bound turn due to opposite direction traffic and they mentioned that they could but momentarily. I cancelled Aircraft X's landing clearance and told him to continue for additional opposite direction traffic that was taxiing out. Aircraft X inbound was told to maintain slowest practical speed and replied that they were at that speed already. Aircraft Y was told to turn westbound due to opposite direction traffic again. At that time Aircraft Y started turning northeast bound and the phrase 'turn left heading 273...' was used which was vectoring below the MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude). Both aircraft had MSAW alarm triggered (CA/CA). Aircraft X then announced that they had traffic in sight. I was working Local Control and had control of both aircraft. I had both aircraft in sight throughout the entire procedure. VMC conditions. IFR separation was not lost; but vectoring below the MVA did occur.I should have done one of the following options and controlled the situation differently. I should have cancelled Aircraft Y takeoff clearance but told them to line up and wait. I should have cancelled Aircraft X's landing clearance and told to continue for traffic holding in position. This would have allowed me to do a procedure that we call the 'wrap;' and would have allowed for positive control.If I had not cancelled the takeoff clearance I should have told Aircraft Y to 'fly heading 343 for traffic' because he was a slow climber and was unable to make terrain and do a westbound in front of Aircraft X inbound for the opposite direction runway. He was a slow climber and would have off-set east of final and then when it was no factor; I should have told him to 'fly heading 273.' He was slow so he most likely would not have passed the 3.05 contour line. Another option would have been to cancel Aircraft X's approach clearance and have him re-sequenced for a new approach. Aircraft Y would have flown the SID as published without interruption. Aircraft X would have been delayed; but it would have created a safer situation.

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.