Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-88
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: A300
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approach had set up an A300 for the ILS Runway XX approach; while the A300 was still about 20 miles out; I requested an opposite direction release off Runway X. An MD-88 had taxied to Runway X; was holding short awaiting another aircraft arrival to Runway XX. Once the previous aircraft exited the runway; I cleared the MD-88 for takeoff with a right turn heading 080 to clear the inbound arrival. When I looked at arrival aircraft's position on the approach; and realized that the MD-88 had not yet begun rolling; I stated to the MD-88 to depart without delay; traffic was 12 miles out. The MD-88 replied he was rolling and while I saw him begin to roll; his takeoff seemed to take longer than usual. I had both aircraft in sight; and when I told the MD-88 to begin his turn; he replied he was already in the turn; by this time however; the A300 was already about a 5 to 6 mile final. After the MD-88 was in his turn and clear of the A300; I lost sight of the MD-88 as he climbed into the clouds. While I do not believe separation was lost; the opposite direction rule was violated; and I believe it was due to my experience assuming the MD-88 would have rolled much quicker and my unwillingness to cancel the MD-88's takeoff roll. In the past this would have not even been cause for concern on my part. It was part of our process to move traffic and provide a service by allowing opposite direction departures. With the emphasis on safety and making sure everyone can benefit from others mistakes; I submit this report knowing I pushed the envelope and regret my decision to allow the opposite direction departure in the first place; and to not hold the MD-88 for an extra 6 to 8 minutes it may have taken to have the A300 clear the runway. Some of the contributing factors are; a blind spot to Runway X from the cab; it is not visible so you have to rely on your experience to figure how long before an aircraft begins to roll. Also; we had multiple leaks in the Tower. Ceiling tiles had been falling from overhead as it had been raining. There was not the normal amount of space in the Tower to be able to move around the cab to look out different parts of the windows. This had put me in a poor frame of mind as I kept thinking about another tile falling on me. Re-emphasize the opposite direction order. Make it a recurring review.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a likely violation of the 'Opposite Direction' rule when clearing an air carrier for departure with opposite direction traffic on final; the reporter listing several evironmental factors as distractions.