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.