Narrative:

We were inbound. ZZZ approach was the controling agency. The active runway was runway 14 when we left a radar vectored hold. We received vectors for the RNAV/GPS approach to runway 14. Then we received new vectors due to a runway switch to runway 32. After receiving vectors for the RNAV/GPS approach to runway 32 we were cleared for the approach. We received notification that the active runway was switched back to runway 14 but we were to continue the approach to runway 32. So the active runway was switched 2 times (from runway 14 to runway 32 and back to runway 14). Continuing inbound on the approach to runway 32; another aircraft was released for takeoff on runway 14. The other aircraft showed up on the TCAS as being 12 O'clock position and 3 mi out. He continued to climb in our direction until we received a traffic alert and he showed less than 2 mi and -200 ft and climbing. We initiated a turn to the left and received a new radar vector of 270 degrees from ZZZ approach. The problem was caused by an aircraft being released on the opposite direction runway while an IFR aircraft cleared for the approach was inbound to the runway. According to approach control the approaching (learjet) aircraft did not follow instructions to climb out on an easterly direction. In addition: the active runway was switched 2 times causing aircraft to land and take off in both directions with low IFR minimums. The wind direction and speed were approximately from the northeast (between 030 and 060) at 5-6 KTS. In this case the active runway did not need to be switched 2 times causing opposite direction traffic. Correction of the situation or prevention of recurrence could be reached with more control of landing and departing aircraft; not allowing aircraft to depart the runway when another aircraft is inbound on the opposite direction runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CE560 FO INBOUND TO RWY 32 AT ZZZ REPORTS OPPOSITE DIRECTION DEPARTURE THAT CAUSES TCAS ALERT. DEPARTING LEAR FAILED TO TURN AFTER TKOF AS INSTRUCTED.

Narrative: WE WERE INBOUND. ZZZ APCH WAS THE CTLING AGENCY. THE ACTIVE RWY WAS RWY 14 WHEN WE LEFT A RADAR VECTORED HOLD. WE RECEIVED VECTORS FOR THE RNAV/GPS APCH TO RWY 14. THEN WE RECEIVED NEW VECTORS DUE TO A RWY SWITCH TO RWY 32. AFTER RECEIVING VECTORS FOR THE RNAV/GPS APCH TO RWY 32 WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH. WE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION THAT THE ACTIVE RWY WAS SWITCHED BACK TO RWY 14 BUT WE WERE TO CONTINUE THE APCH TO RWY 32. SO THE ACTIVE RWY WAS SWITCHED 2 TIMES (FROM RWY 14 TO RWY 32 AND BACK TO RWY 14). CONTINUING INBOUND ON THE APCH TO RWY 32; ANOTHER ACFT WAS RELEASED FOR TKOF ON RWY 14. THE OTHER ACFT SHOWED UP ON THE TCAS AS BEING 12 O'CLOCK POS AND 3 MI OUT. HE CONTINUED TO CLB IN OUR DIRECTION UNTIL WE RECEIVED A TFC ALERT AND HE SHOWED LESS THAN 2 MI AND -200 FT AND CLBING. WE INITIATED A TURN TO THE L AND RECEIVED A NEW RADAR VECTOR OF 270 DEGS FROM ZZZ APCH. THE PROB WAS CAUSED BY AN ACFT BEING RELEASED ON THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION RWY WHILE AN IFR ACFT CLRED FOR THE APCH WAS INBOUND TO THE RWY. ACCORDING TO APCH CTL THE APCHING (LEARJET) ACFT DID NOT FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS TO CLB OUT ON AN EASTERLY DIRECTION. IN ADDITION: THE ACTIVE RWY WAS SWITCHED 2 TIMES CAUSING ACFT TO LAND AND TAKE OFF IN BOTH DIRECTIONS WITH LOW IFR MINIMUMS. THE WIND DIRECTION AND SPD WERE APPROX FROM THE NE (BTWN 030 AND 060) AT 5-6 KTS. IN THIS CASE THE ACTIVE RWY DID NOT NEED TO BE SWITCHED 2 TIMES CAUSING OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC. CORRECTION OF THE SITUATION OR PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE COULD BE REACHED WITH MORE CTL OF LNDG AND DEPARTING ACFT; NOT ALLOWING ACFT TO DEPART THE RWY WHEN ANOTHER ACFT IS INBOUND ON THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION RWY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.