Narrative:

An E145 regional jet inbound from the southwest descending to 6;000. The winds were less than 5 KTS from the south with good VFR weather and visual approaches advertised on the ATIS to runway 25 at fsm. I requested approval from tower for an opposite direction approach to runway 07 for the E145 because the winds were light and it would expedite the flight to parking. The tower controller approved the opposite direction arrival but indicated that a king air was taxiing out to runway 25 and would call for release per the SOP. I offered the opposite direction visual approach to the E145 who accepted it and reported runway 07 in sight approximately 20 miles southwest of the field. I cleared the E145 for the visual approach to runway 07. A few seconds later the tower called for release of the king air departure off runway 25. I released the king air runway heading climbing to 8;000 ft; thinking that the king air would be well above the regional jet before E145 intercepted final. I informed the E145 of the traffic departing opposite direction off runway 25. The E145 acknowledged the traffic and continued inbound descending through 2;800. The king air was radar identified within 1 mile of the departure end of runway 25 and given traffic at 11-10 o'clock and 11 miles converging. I made several traffic calls to the E145 about the king air and believed that E145 would have no problem seeing the king air in the climb. As traffic converged at approximately 6 miles; I asked the king air to increase his rate of climb or turn to heading 290. The king air acknowledged the climb rate increase and again I pointed out traffic at 11'o'clock and 6 miles. I issued the E145 traffic once more 12 o'clock and 4 miles as the king air climbed through 2;900 indicated on my radar display. The E145 reported the king air in sight and I told the E145 to maintain visual separation; the E145 acknowledged the clearance. I instructed the E145 to contact the tower and noticed his altitude 1;800 descending. Separation was not lost but I would not rely on visual separation or the climb rate of the king air; if the situation occurred again. I should have issued a departure heading to the tower that was more positive control that would have vectored the king air further away from the arriving regional jet. Even better I could just have left the regional jet inbound to the advertised runway and avoided the possibility of a conflict. I am especially embarrassed by this incident because of all the emphasis lately about the use of visual separation. I should have used more positive control technique to avoid this situation. Recommendation; I would be more hesitant to offer opposite direction approaches even when the traffic is light. When approving opposite direction approaches; and a departure requests release; I will issue a turn to the aircraft of 45 degrees or more to clear the path of the reciprocal arrival; or I will issue the tower release subject their discretion with visual separation from the inbound aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Approach Controller described a near conflict event when an inbound was issued an opposite direction visual approach clearance; noting more positive actions will be taken in future similar situations.

Narrative: An E145 regional jet inbound from the southwest descending to 6;000. The winds were less than 5 KTS from the south with good VFR weather and Visual Approaches advertised on the ATIS to Runway 25 at FSM. I requested approval from Tower for an opposite direction approach to Runway 07 for the E145 because the winds were light and it would expedite the flight to parking. The Tower Controller approved the opposite direction arrival but indicated that a King Air was taxiing out to Runway 25 and would call for release per the SOP. I offered the opposite direction visual approach to the E145 who accepted it and reported Runway 07 in sight approximately 20 miles southwest of the field. I cleared the E145 for the visual approach to Runway 07. A few seconds later the Tower called for release of the King Air departure off Runway 25. I released the King Air runway heading climbing to 8;000 FT; thinking that the King Air would be well above the regional jet before E145 intercepted final. I informed the E145 of the traffic departing opposite direction off Runway 25. The E145 acknowledged the traffic and continued inbound descending through 2;800. The King Air was RADAR identified within 1 mile of the departure end of Runway 25 and given traffic at 11-10 o'clock and 11 miles converging. I made several traffic calls to the E145 about the King Air and believed that E145 would have no problem seeing the King Air in the climb. As traffic converged at approximately 6 miles; I asked the King Air to increase his rate of climb or turn to heading 290. The King Air acknowledged the climb rate increase and again I pointed out traffic at 11'o'clock and 6 miles. I issued the E145 traffic once more 12 o'clock and 4 miles as the King Air climbed through 2;900 indicated on my RADAR display. The E145 reported the King Air in sight and I told the E145 to maintain visual separation; the E145 acknowledged the clearance. I instructed the E145 to contact the Tower and noticed his altitude 1;800 descending. Separation was not lost but I would not rely on visual separation or the climb rate of the King Air; if the situation occurred again. I should have issued a departure heading to the Tower that was more positive control that would have vectored the King Air further away from the arriving regional jet. Even better I could just have left the regional jet inbound to the advertised runway and avoided the possibility of a conflict. I am especially embarrassed by this incident because of all the emphasis lately about the use of visual separation. I should have used more positive control technique to avoid this situation. Recommendation; I would be more hesitant to offer opposite direction approaches even when the traffic is light. When approving opposite direction approaches; and a departure requests release; I will issue a turn to the aircraft of 45 degrees or more to clear the path of the reciprocal arrival; or I will issue the Tower release subject their discretion with visual separation from the inbound aircraft.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.