Do 328 TJ (Turbojet)
Air Traffic Control Developmental
Confusion
ATC Issue All Types
General None Reported / Taken
Procedure
What does 'opposite direction' really mean in a TERMINAL ENVIRONMENT? I was informed that a recent incident was non-separated. I am requesting clarity on this procedure for this facility; and nationwide; for the purpose of consistency; and non-punitive treatment of controllers running safe operations with aircraft on intersecting runways. A Dornier was switched to my (Tower) frequency on a visual approach to Runway 28 about 15 miles southeast of the airport. When the Dornier was 12 miles southeast; I cleared a CRJ7 for takeoff on Runway 6; on a SID; which is essentially runway heading and exchanged traffic to each. When the CRJ7 was through the Runway 28/6 intersection; I stated 'Dornier; traffic through the intersection; no factor.' At that point; the Dornier was 8 miles southeast; about two miles south of the Runway 28 extended centerline. The CRJ7 was switched to departure RADAR; seated next to me; while the Dornier remained on my frequency. I maintained Tower applied visual separation between the two aircraft. I was told this was possibly an Operational Error and was shown the FALCON playback. I was told our local order was not complied with and considering that Runway 28 'final' and Runway 6 centerline reciprocal headings are only 39 degrees divergent; and that the Dornier was within a 10-mile radius of the airport before the CRJ7 commenced a left turn; our order repeatedly states 'turned to avert all conflicts' to state when separation is achieved. There was no need to turn the CRJ7; because once it passed the runway intersection; the conflict ended. The order refers to opposite direction. The Dornier was never aligned to Runway 28 until 2 mile final or less. The national order defines 'FINAL APPROACH' only in terms of instrument approaches. When using the term 'opposite direction' an aircraft 'passed the intersection' is separated from an arrival to a crossing runway.
Tower Controller described an alledged loss of separation reference the 'opposite direction' rules; the reporter claiming the governing procedures were mis-interpreted given the location of the event.