A LOW TIME CFII EXPERIENCED AN INTERFAC COORD FAILURE WHILE LNDG AT PWK.

Narrative

ON AUG/XA/00 WE WERE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN TO PWK. WE WERE HANDED OFF TO APCH CTL ON 120.55 WHO ISSUED US RADAR VECTORS FOR AN ILS RWY 16 APCH. WE COMPLIED WITH ALL ALT AND RADAR VECTORS ISSUED TO US. THE ARR CTLR ASKED US TO MAINTAIN OUR SPD. WHILE ON BASE LEG; THE ARR CTLR GAVE US A VECTOR TO FINAL OF 120 DEGS AND CLRED US FOR THE ILS RWY 16 APCH STATING THAT WE WOULD FLY THROUGH THE LOC COURSE. WE COMPLIED WITH THE VECTOR; INTERCEPTED THE LOC AND CONTINUED ON THE ILS RWY 16 APCH. THE APCH CTLR DID NOT ISSUE ANY ALT OR DISTANCE RESTS FOR THIS APCH SO WE CONTINUED ON THE PUBLISHED APCH PROFILE. AT APPROX 1 MI ON FINAL; THE APCH CTLR HANDED US OFF TO PWK TWR. WE SWITCHED TO TWR ON 119.9 AND HEARD TWR ISSUING GAR INSTRUCTIONS TO AN ACFT LNDG ON RWY 32 BECAUSE OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC THAT TWR WAS NOT TALKING TO. WE CHKED IN WITH TWR AND WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 16. UPON CLRING RWY 16; WE CONTACTED GND CTL FOR TAXI INSTRUCTIONS AND WERE ASKED TO CALL THE TWR. I TOLD GND CTL THAT WE HAD A LATE HDOF FROM APCH CTL. I CALLED THE TWR AND WE DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF THIS SIT. THROUGHOUT THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS; IT APPEARS THAT THE APCH CTLR DID NOT ADEQUATELY COORDINATE OUR APCH WITH PWK TWR. FORTUNATELY; TWR WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE DEVELOPING SIT AND AVOIDED A POTENTIAL NMAC BY ISSUING THE GAR TO THE OTHER ACFT. I SUGGEST THAT DURING PERIODS OF TIME WHEN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC IS ANTICIPATED; THE APCH CTLR AND TWR CTLR AGGRESSIVELY MAINTAIN COORD OF ALL INBOUND TFC. ALT AND DISTANCE RESTRS COULD BE COORDINATED WITH TWR AND ISSUED BY THE APCH CTLR TO ANY ACFT COMMENCING AN APCH DURING OPPOSITE DIRECTION OPS.