INBOUND COMMUTER HAD CONFLICT WITH OPPOSITE DIRECTION OUTBOUND VFR ACFT. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT USED.

Narrative

KNOWN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC WAS NOT EXCHANGED BTWN EACH OTHER EVEN THOUGH CTLR WORKLOAD AND COMPLEXITY ALLOWED. SEE REF FAA 7110.65(H) PLT/CTLR GLOSSARY; TA AND 7110.65(H) CHAPTER 3 PARAGRAPH 3-1 NOTE. RESPONSIBILITIES. SATCS; LCL CTLR INATTENTIVE TO DUTIES. THIS LED TO A NON-ISSUANCE OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION; KNOWN TFC. NWBOUND IFR ARR COMMUTER VISUALLY ENCOUNTERED AN UNEXPECTED OPPOSITE DIRECTION VFR SEBOUND DEP. THE DEP PASSED IN CLOSE PROX TO THE IFR NWBOUND ARR. NEITHER THE IFR ARR; NOR THE VFR DEP WERE MADE AWARE OF EACH OTHER OPERATING IN THE SAME VICINITY. BOTH WERE BEING WORKED BY SATCS LCL CTLR. IFR PLT MAINTAINED HIS OWN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH THE VFR DEP AND QUERIED TWR LCL ABOUT TFC HE HAD JUST OBSERVED THAT PASSED CLOSE TO HIS ACFT. THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION VFR SAID HE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS CLOSE. NO CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN BY TWR LCL CTLR. CAPT OF THE COMMUTER ACFT CALLED THE TWR TO DISCUSS THE EVENT AND FIND OUT WHY HE WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE DEP. CONTENTS OF THE PHONE CONVERSATION ARE NOT KNOWN TO ME AT THIS TIME. HAD TFC BEEN EXCHANGED BTWN THE 2 ACFT (WHICH WORKLOAD PERMITTED); THE NWBOUND IFR ARR AND THE SEBOUND DEP WOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF EACH OTHER. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR EACH OTHER AND WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN TAKEN BACK WHEN THEY SAW EACH OTHER. NOT ONLY WOULD THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED; BUT AN EMBARRASSING PHONE INQUIRY COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED AS WELL. HAD THE LCL CTL SATCS BEEN MORE ATTENTIVE TO HIS RESPONSIBILITIES (WHICH WORKLOAD PERMITTED) THIS ENTIRE SIT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. EXCHANGE OF TFC IN A NON-RADAR ENVIRONMENT IS VERY ESSENTIAL TO POSITIVE CTL.