Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ONT
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Contra-flow conditions. Aircraft X in position on Runway 08L with a flow window. Aircraft Y Landing Runway 26L. Aircraft Z on a visual approach to Runway 26R. Our contra LOA with SCT states that we can release an opposite direction departure as long as the departure is 'in the turn' prior to the arrival beginning a ten mile final. I was on the log at ONT. The Tower Controller had Aircraft X ready to depart Runway 08L with a release window and two arrivals on final. Aircraft Y was close; Aircraft Z was 30+ miles to the northeast on an ILS/Vis approach to Runway 26R. The Tower Controller took the hand-off on Aircraft Z. Visual to Runway 26R. When he took the hand-off the tag indicated an ILS approach. At some point the tag changed to a visual approach. He had Aircraft Y land Runway 26L while Aircraft X was in position on Runway 08L. He asked Aircraft Z to continue on base and told him he would turn him inbound. Aircraft Z continued on base. He cleared Aircraft X for immediate take-off as soon as Aircraft Y landed. He turned Aircraft Z inbound and cleared him to land as Aircraft X was turning south. According to Aircraft A we had 10.28 miles as Aircraft X was turning. SCT filed a report; but I'm not sure what issue the report is reporting. I'm filing this as a record in response to the MOR.


Second narrative: I had just taken the position and completed the brief. The 2 minute overlap was still in effect. Aircraft Z was already cleared for the Visual approach to ONT Runway 26R and shipped to the Tower. The SAIDS reported ONT was West Flow; but the tower had not coordinated the end of CONTRA operations. To reduce confusion I called Tower to confirm ONT was west flow to which the responded 'we will be west flow after Aircraft X). Because NORR and POMR were split I did not know about Aircraft X. POMR radar confirmed Aircraft X was released but because Aircraft Z was inside the 10 NM cutoff point and both aircraft were on Tower frequency POMR and NORR assumed Tower would provide appropriate separation by holding Aircraft X on the ground. I then noticed Aircraft Z take a sharp turn southbound and level at 040 in a 4;300 feet MVA. I again called Tower to ask intentions of Aircraft Z and Tower responded (they are turning towards the airport now). It was then that I saw Aircraft X data tag acquire airborne opposite direction to Aircraft Z inside of 6NM. The Tower later explained that they had launched Aircraft X to comply with departure flow restrictions and 'panicked' when they saw Aircraft Z turn inbound. The Tower initiated the southbound turn on Aircraft Z without coordination or authorization.  There are many holes in the cheese in this scenario- This event occurred at the end of normal contra-flow operation limits. POMR and NORR had just split sectors creating a disconnect between departure and arrival information. The SaIDs when I took position advertised West Flow even though the Tower later confirmed it was still contra. Tower did not request an opposite direction departure from POMR.  As the NORR Controller I did not know Aircraft X was rolling. I assumed that Aircraft Z had turned on his own volition in order to have more time to descend on the visual approach. If I had known the Tower had turned Aircraft Z to avoid an opposite direction departure I would have cancelled approach clearance immediately; issued a Local Airport Advisory and climbed Aircraft Z to 050 and re sequence. At no time did the tower request control for turns or imply that Aircraft X was a conflict. Contra flow operations should never be authorized after XA00z and Tower must plan accordingly by not taxiing aircraft to Runway 08 near XA00z. Tower must comply with prescribed ODO operations and not allow an aircraft to depart after 10 NM cutoff has been breached.  Tower must request an opposite direction departure when there is an aircraft inbound. If for any reason Tower cannot comply; Tower should be responsible for initiating a go around and coordinating immediately with SoCal Approach. Recommend all Tower personnel receive a refresher briefing on ODO requirements and engage in discussion on appropriate methods for de-conflicting ODO aircraft if things go wrong. At no time should the Tower be turning the inbound aircraft to deconflict with a departure without coordinating with So Cal Approach.  Splitting the POMR and NORR sector during Contra Flow operations should be avoided; too much room for confusion. ONT tower must call West Flow operations prior to advertising it on the SAIds.


Synopsis: ONT Tower and SCT TRACON Controllers reported an air carrier was vectored into higher MVA; and noncompliance with opposite direction operations resulting in an airborne conflict.