Narrative:

On aug/xa/00 we were on an IFR flight plan to pwk. We were handed off to approach control on 120.55 who issued us radar vectors for an ILS runway 16 approach. We complied with all altitude and radar vectors issued to us. The arrival controller asked us to maintain our speed. While on base leg, the arrival controller gave us a vector to final of 120 degrees and cleared us for the ILS runway 16 approach stating that we would fly through the localizer course. We complied with the vector, intercepted the localizer and continued on the ILS runway 16 approach. The approach controller did not issue any altitude or distance rests for this approach so we continued on the published approach profile. At approximately 1 mi on final, the approach controller handed us off to pwk tower. We switched to tower on 119.9 and heard tower issuing go around instructions to an aircraft landing on runway 32 because of opposite direction traffic that tower was not talking to. We checked in with tower and were cleared to land on runway 16. Upon clearing runway 16, we contacted ground control for taxi instructions and were asked to call the tower. I told ground control that we had a late handoff from approach control. I called the tower and we discussed the details of this situation. Throughout this sequence of events, it appears that the approach controller did not adequately coordinate our approach with pwk tower. Fortunately, tower was fully aware of the developing situation and avoided a potential near midair collision by issuing the go around to the other aircraft. I suggest that during periods of time when opposite direction traffic is anticipated, the approach controller and tower controller aggressively maintain coordination of all inbound traffic. Altitude and distance restrs could be coordinated with tower and issued by the approach controller to any aircraft commencing an approach during opposite direction operations.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A LOW TIME CFII EXPERIENCED AN INTERFAC COORD FAILURE WHILE LNDG AT PWK.

Narrative: ON AUG/XA/00 WE WERE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN TO PWK. WE WERE HANDED OFF TO APCH CTL ON 120.55 WHO ISSUED US RADAR VECTORS FOR AN ILS RWY 16 APCH. WE COMPLIED WITH ALL ALT AND RADAR VECTORS ISSUED TO US. THE ARR CTLR ASKED US TO MAINTAIN OUR SPD. WHILE ON BASE LEG, THE ARR CTLR GAVE US A VECTOR TO FINAL OF 120 DEGS AND CLRED US FOR THE ILS RWY 16 APCH STATING THAT WE WOULD FLY THROUGH THE LOC COURSE. WE COMPLIED WITH THE VECTOR, INTERCEPTED THE LOC AND CONTINUED ON THE ILS RWY 16 APCH. THE APCH CTLR DID NOT ISSUE ANY ALT OR DISTANCE RESTS FOR THIS APCH SO WE CONTINUED ON THE PUBLISHED APCH PROFILE. AT APPROX 1 MI ON FINAL, THE APCH CTLR HANDED US OFF TO PWK TWR. WE SWITCHED TO TWR ON 119.9 AND HEARD TWR ISSUING GAR INSTRUCTIONS TO AN ACFT LNDG ON RWY 32 BECAUSE OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC THAT TWR WAS NOT TALKING TO. WE CHKED IN WITH TWR AND WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 16. UPON CLRING RWY 16, WE CONTACTED GND CTL FOR TAXI INSTRUCTIONS AND WERE ASKED TO CALL THE TWR. I TOLD GND CTL THAT WE HAD A LATE HDOF FROM APCH CTL. I CALLED THE TWR AND WE DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF THIS SIT. THROUGHOUT THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, IT APPEARS THAT THE APCH CTLR DID NOT ADEQUATELY COORDINATE OUR APCH WITH PWK TWR. FORTUNATELY, TWR WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE DEVELOPING SIT AND AVOIDED A POTENTIAL NMAC BY ISSUING THE GAR TO THE OTHER ACFT. I SUGGEST THAT DURING PERIODS OF TIME WHEN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC IS ANTICIPATED, THE APCH CTLR AND TWR CTLR AGGRESSIVELY MAINTAIN COORD OF ALL INBOUND TFC. ALT AND DISTANCE RESTRS COULD BE COORDINATED WITH TWR AND ISSUED BY THE APCH CTLR TO ANY ACFT COMMENCING AN APCH DURING OPPOSITE DIRECTION OPS.

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.