Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SMF.Tower, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SMF
ATC / advisory: Tower SMF
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Change of runway from noise abatement (Rwy 34L/R) to normal operations (Rwy 16L/R) had just occurred. I was working Ground Control. Northern California TRACON requested opposite direction for Aircraft Y to Rwy 34R. Aircraft X was on final to Rwy 16L sequenced number one to the runway. It appeared from the outset that it would be close to newly determined cutoff point for ODO to the same runway. Local controller discussed situation with me and we had decided that if Aircraft Y needed to be redirected to Rwy 16L/R we would be advised by the arrival sector. Aircraft X was on short final (less than 1/2 mile) when Aircraft Y checked in at about a 13 mile final. New cutoff requirements had gone into effect that required the second aircraft to be at 15 miles or greater when the first aircraft crossed the threshold. The procedure as set up is sufficient for the operation. I now think that it would have been appropriate for me to call the supervisor or the local controller to advise the arrival sector that Aircraft Y needed to be broken off the approach and redirected to the runway in use. As written; there is the implication in the LOA that in this case the arrival/coordinating sector would advise us to break out the aircraft; just as they would be expected to do if we had compression to the runway in use and it appeared that there would be a loss. I don't know that specifying the responsibility more clearly would solve this issue.


Second narrative: I was working LC (south wind landing RWYs 16) and the approach controller (from here on; I will refer to them by their facility name 'NCT') called me to coordinate an opposite direction arrival for Aircraft Y sixty miles to the southeast landing RWY 34R. I quickly checked our departures and approved the request; as no departures would prohibit this. As Aircraft Y got closer to the airport; I noticed to the north that Aircraft X was the same distance from the airport inbound for the same runway but opposite direction (RWY 16L). Following him about 5-10 miles in-trail was Aircraft Z inbound for RWY 16R. And finally Aircraft A was inbound from the south to RWY 16L.According to the national ODO (Opposite Direction Operation) requirements as well as our LOA with NCT; there were three separation issues. The LOA states that NCT must ensure that an arrival must be on the ground by the time the same runway opposite direction arrival reaches 15 miles from the airport. To parallel runways; NCT must ensure standard or visual separation is being used between the arrivals. Aircraft X was the first to land on RWY 16L. When he touched down; Aircraft Y was around 11-12 mile final; opposite direction for RWY 34R. NCT didn't have 15 miles. Then as Aircraft Y was on final Aircraft Z was on the reciprocal final landing RWY 16R. I don't know what kind of separation was being used; because I didn't get Aircraft Y in sight until he was about 5 mile final (and Aircraft Z was about 4 mile final at that point.) I had been talking to both of these arrivals outside of 10 mile finals for their perspective runways. With the cloud layers; there's no way NCT was able to get pilot visual separation when they were over 20 miles apart; as I got them when they were about 8-9 miles apart. NCT didn't ask me to provide any kind of visual separation; and they ended up with about 1.5-2 miles lateral separation as they landed. They might have assumed that I was going to provide visual separation (which I was able to do before they lost standard IFR separation) but they didn't ensure anything. Finally; by the time Aircraft Y landed RWY 34R; Aircraft A was turning final for 16L (needing 15 miles; again) but was within 10 miles when Aircraft Y touched down. I don't know if it's a lack of/poor briefing at NCT; or a misunderstanding of the rules by the controllers; but almost nothing was properly handled in this instance. And if it was a misunderstanding of the rules; the controllers shouldn't be using the procedure.


Synopsis: SMF Front Line Manager and Local Controller report of an Opposite Direction Operation (ODO) that resulted in a loss of required ODO separation.