Narrative:

Small aircraft X was on a practice instrument approach, opposite direction, and did not report the FAF inbound. Controllers were having a difficult time seeing small aircraft and didn't see the small aircraft X inside the FAF. MTR Y departed runway 17 on an IFR flight plan. The MTR executed a climbing maneuver on departure when he saw small aircraft X. Adequate separation existed when I saw the 2 aircraft, however this may be attributed more to the maneuver of the MTR. The instructor aboard small aircraft X stated that he had the MTR in sight the whole time (small aircraft X was VFR). This type of operation is conducted regularly at sln which may be the reason that small aircraft X didn't become more concerned when he saw the MTR departing. He should have questioned the procedure when no traffic or instructions were given. Controllers were experiencing receiver difficulties at the position that they were working from, during the situation. (This has not been determined to have been a factor as of this time.) I have been at sln tower for 2 yrs and the majority of questionable sits that have occurred are associated with the opposite direction approachs. This procedure conducted without the assistance of any automation relies entirely on the controller's ability to see the aircraft and the pilots accurately reporting the appropriate position. When either one of these elements is missing the operation becomes difficult. If both elements are missing the operation is unsafe. Radar at sln could be used to verify the aircraft position and serve as a backup to the pilot's report. The instructor of small aircraft X apparently felt that because he had the MTR in sight there was no need to tell the tower of his position. This should be corrected at the local level. Supplemental information from acn 253422: while giving instrument instruction on a localizer approach to runway 35 at salina, I observed an aircraft taking off of runway 17 at salina. I could observe the landing light and later the exhaust. The distance at this time was about 3 mi. As we got closer I commented to the student that there was an MTR taking off toward us and that I had him in sight. As the jet started his climb, I had the student make a right turn back to flory LOM, as a missed approach, the jet flew overhead. At the beginning of the approach we were instructed to call the LOM out and in. I called the LOM out, and to the best of my recollection, the student called the LOM in. While on the approach the tower asked me for our position. I said I was on missed approach and had the jet in sight, but was stepped on. I later (30 seconds) repeated this call. After I landed the tower asked me to call them (telephone). When I called I spoke with the tower supervisor. He said the MTR pilot was going to file a report. The tower chief admitted the tower communication equipment was having problems. He did not hear my first position report he requested, however he said it was on the 'tape.' he said he had the LOM outbound call, but not the inbound. 3 MTR's on frequency, along with 2 small aircraft's and our small aircraft X. If the LOM inbound call was missed that explains the MTR pilot surprise. However, a near midair report is unwarranted. I had visual contact with the jet for some time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA X HAD CONFLICT WITH OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC IN ATA. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT. EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN.

Narrative: SMA X WAS ON A PRACTICE INST APCH, OPPOSITE DIRECTION, AND DID NOT RPT THE FAF INBOUND. CTLRS WERE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME SEEING SMALL ACFT AND DIDN'T SEE THE SMA X INSIDE THE FAF. MTR Y DEPARTED RWY 17 ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. THE MTR EXECUTED A CLBING MANEUVER ON DEP WHEN HE SAW SMA X. ADEQUATE SEPARATION EXISTED WHEN I SAW THE 2 ACFT, HOWEVER THIS MAY BE ATTRIBUTED MORE TO THE MANEUVER OF THE MTR. THE INSTRUCTOR ABOARD SMA X STATED THAT HE HAD THE MTR IN SIGHT THE WHOLE TIME (SMA X WAS VFR). THIS TYPE OF OP IS CONDUCTED REGULARLY AT SLN WHICH MAY BE THE REASON THAT SMA X DIDN'T BECOME MORE CONCERNED WHEN HE SAW THE MTR DEPARTING. HE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE PROC WHEN NO TFC OR INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN. CTLRS WERE EXPERIENCING RECEIVER DIFFICULTIES AT THE POS THAT THEY WERE WORKING FROM, DURING THE SIT. (THIS HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN A FACTOR AS OF THIS TIME.) I HAVE BEEN AT SLN TWR FOR 2 YRS AND THE MAJORITY OF QUESTIONABLE SITS THAT HAVE OCCURRED ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION APCHS. THIS PROC CONDUCTED WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF ANY AUTOMATION RELIES ENTIRELY ON THE CTLR'S ABILITY TO SEE THE ACFT AND THE PLTS ACCURATELY RPTING THE APPROPRIATE POS. WHEN EITHER ONE OF THESE ELEMENTS IS MISSING THE OP BECOMES DIFFICULT. IF BOTH ELEMENTS ARE MISSING THE OP IS UNSAFE. RADAR AT SLN COULD BE USED TO VERIFY THE ACFT POS AND SERVE AS A BACKUP TO THE PLT'S RPT. THE INSTRUCTOR OF SMA X APPARENTLY FELT THAT BECAUSE HE HAD THE MTR IN SIGHT THERE WAS NO NEED TO TELL THE TWR OF HIS POS. THIS SHOULD BE CORRECTED AT THE LCL LEVEL. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 253422: WHILE GIVING INST INSTRUCTION ON A LOC APCH TO RWY 35 AT SALINA, I OBSERVED AN ACFT TAKING OFF OF RWY 17 AT SALINA. I COULD OBSERVE THE LNDG LIGHT AND LATER THE EXHAUST. THE DISTANCE AT THIS TIME WAS ABOUT 3 MI. AS WE GOT CLOSER I COMMENTED TO THE STUDENT THAT THERE WAS AN MTR TAKING OFF TOWARD US AND THAT I HAD HIM IN SIGHT. AS THE JET STARTED HIS CLB, I HAD THE STUDENT MAKE A R TURN BACK TO FLORY LOM, AS A MISSED APCH, THE JET FLEW OVERHEAD. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE APCH WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CALL THE LOM OUT AND IN. I CALLED THE LOM OUT, AND TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, THE STUDENT CALLED THE LOM IN. WHILE ON THE APCH THE TWR ASKED ME FOR OUR POS. I SAID I WAS ON MISSED APCH AND HAD THE JET IN SIGHT, BUT WAS STEPPED ON. I LATER (30 SECONDS) REPEATED THIS CALL. AFTER I LANDED THE TWR ASKED ME TO CALL THEM (TELEPHONE). WHEN I CALLED I SPOKE WITH THE TWR SUPVR. HE SAID THE MTR PLT WAS GOING TO FILE A RPT. THE TWR CHIEF ADMITTED THE TWR COM EQUIP WAS HAVING PROBS. HE DID NOT HEAR MY FIRST POS RPT HE REQUESTED, HOWEVER HE SAID IT WAS ON THE 'TAPE.' HE SAID HE HAD THE LOM OUTBOUND CALL, BUT NOT THE INBOUND. 3 MTR'S ON FREQ, ALONG WITH 2 SMA'S AND OUR SMA X. IF THE LOM INBOUND CALL WAS MISSED THAT EXPLAINS THE MTR PLT SURPRISE. HOWEVER, A NEAR MIDAIR RPT IS UNWARRANTED. I HAD VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE JET FOR SOME TIME.

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.