AN ATCT LCL CTLR REPORTS THAT AN ACR E120 WAS CLRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 29 AS A CPR HS25 WAS ON FINAL APCH TO RWY 11. THE ACFT CAME WITHIN ONE MI OF EACH OTHER. THE CTLR COMPLAINS ABOUT THE POLICY THAT ALLOWS OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS OPERATIONS WITHOUT RADIO CONTACT WITH THE PRINCIPLE FLCS.

Narrative

WE HAVE A BRITE RADAR THAT DISPLAYS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TARGETS ONLY. WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED BY FAA MANAGEMENT PROVIDE VISUAL SEPARATION BETWEEN DEPARTING IFR ACFT AND ARRIVING IFR ACFT ONLY IF WE ARE IN RADIO CONTACT WITH THE IFR ARR ACFT OR THE RADAR CTLR SPECIFIES TO PROVIDE VISUAL SEPARATION. THIS PROC DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ATC MANUAL 7110.6J REF VISUAL APCH SEPARATION. MOST; IF NOT ALMOST ALWAYS; THE RADAR APCH CTLR WILL NOT SPECIFY OTHERWISE. THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS SITS WHERE THIS TWR WAS NOT IN RADIO CONTACT WITH THE IFR ARRS UNTIL THE ARRS WERE TWO MI FROM THE APCH END OF THE RWY WITH TFC DEPARTING ON THE OPPOSITE RWY. THE LAST CONFLICT THAT I CAN REMEMBER OCCURRED ON 4/THU/98 AT XA20L WHERE AN E120 (AN ACR) WAS CLRED FOR TKOF RWY 29 WITH AN H25 (A CPR ACFT) INBOUND TO RWY 11. ACFT MISSED EACH OTHER BY ABOUT ONE MI. HOWEVER; THIS COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A MIDAIR COLLISION SINCE THE LCL CTLR HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE IFR ARR ACFT AND WAS NOT IN RADIO CONTACT WITH THE IFR ARR. THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF THESE CONFLICTS (OP ERRORS) THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REPORTED BECAUSE MANAGEMENT WILL BLAME IT ON THE CTLR AND NOT THE PROC. THERE ARE ONLY TWO PHRASES FOR A LCL CTLR TO KNOW CONCERNING SEPARATION INVOLVING AN IFR DEP AND AN IFR ARR; 'HOLD FOR RELEASE' OR 'RELEASED SUBJECT YOUR DISCRETION; REFERENCE (ARR ACFT);' OTHERWISE THE IFR DEP IS RELEASED REGARDLESS OF RADIO CONTACT WITH THE IFR ARR. ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES WITH FAA MANAGEMENT IS A WASTE OF TIME.