A CRJ CAPT EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING SLC TWR'S ISSUANCE OF DEP HDGS AND POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH ARR TFC EXECUTING A GAR.

Narrative

THIS RPT IS FILED AS AN OBSERVATION OF AN OP CONDUCTED BY THE SALT LAKE TWR ON A REGULAR BASIS OVER THE PAST 2-3 YRS. UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; THE SALT LAKE TWR CTLR'S WILL ASSIGN A DEP ACFT TO USE RWY 16L OR RWY 17. THEY WILL DO THIS WHILE USING RWY 16R FOR ARRS ONLY. DURING SEVERAL DEPS I HAVE DONE UNDER THIS CLRNC WITH A VECTOR TURN TO 280 DEGS; FROM EITHER RWY 16R OR RWY 17; I HAVE NOTICED FROM THE AIR THAT WE WERE IN A POS WHERE WE COULD POSSIBLY FIND OURSELVES ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH AN ACFT THAT HAD BEEN LNDG ON RWY 16R; BUT EITHER HAD TO DO A GAR OR A MISSED APCH. COMPOUNDING THE POTENTIAL FOR SUCH A DISASTER; IS THE FACT THAT EACH ACFT THAT MAY BE INVOLVED IN THE POTENTIAL COLLISION ZONE; IS OPERATING ON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TWR FREQ; AND CANNOT HEAR THE OTHER ACFT OR CTLR. IN ADDITION; AND DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE TWR BTWN THE RWYS; EACH CTLR WOULD ACTUALLY BE LOOKING OPPOSITE THE OTHER. EAST VERSUS WEST. THIS MEANS THAT EVEN IF THE CTLR'S ARE LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THEIR RESPECTIVE ACFT; SHOULD THE LNDG ACFT GAR (VMC ONLY); THE CTLR'S WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMMUNICATE THE POTENTIAL COLLISION TO EACH OTHER; THEN ISSUE AVOIDANCE INSTRUCTIONS TO EACH ACFT. SHOULD A LOSS OF COMS OCCUR (STUCK MIKE; ETC); A COLLISION MAY BECOME UNAVOIDABLE. UNDER IMC CONDITIONS; THE RADAR UPDATE MAY TAKE JUST LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE COLLISION AVOIDANCE INSTRUCTIONS TOO LATE. IN BOTH CASES; IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE CTLRS ARE PAYING DIRECT ATTN TO THE ACTUAL ACFT OR THE RADAR SCREEN; AND WITHOUT DISTR. TCASII WOULD HELP IN THIS SIT; BUT IT SHOULD BE NOTED THE TCASII RA'S ARE INHIBITED ON SOME ACFT DURING APCH AND DEP PHASES; INCLUDING THE CRJ50. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS RPT IS ONLY AN OBSERVATION AND THE RPT WRITER HAS NOT EXPERIENCED AN ACTUAL TFC INCIDENT AS OF THE DATE OF THIS RPT.