Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAF.Airport, NM
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Second aircraft: P180 Avanti
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was informed about the new order pertaining to opposite direction approaches. The Briefer related the particulars of the order and that there were three airports in our airspace which were affected. Santa Fe; which is within my specialty; was one. During question and answer session we were informed that crossing runway operations and circling approaches were not affected by the new order. When reporting for duty approximately five minutes after briefing concluded; the FLM advised the incoming controllers that the information relayed in briefing was wrong and that at SAF the only runway clearance that could be issued was the runway which was on the ATIS broadcast. I plugged into sector with a RADAR developmental to perform OJT. My Developmental was confused by the change from what we were briefed and what we were being told now. An Airspace/Procedures Specialist was in the area so we questioned him about the change and was informed that 'this was the latest information available and that there would probably be more changes in the near future'. Several minutes into the OJT session; SAF was broadcasting an ATIS with visual approaches to Runway 02. An E145 reported SAF airport in sight and was cleared for visual approach to Runway 02. SAF Tower called and requested a Runway 02 departure clearance for a P180 to COS. A visual separation clearance was issued instructing SAF Tower to release the P180 subject their discretion with the arrival aircraft. The E135 was switched to SAF Tower frequency. Moments later; SAF Tower called to advise that 'winds were swirling' and that the E135 would be landing Runway 20; creating an opposite direction situation.Later in the OJT session; a C560 had reported receipt of the ATIS for Visual Approach to Runway 15 and subsequently reported the airport in sight. The C560 was cleared for Visual Approach to Runway 15. SAF Tower called to advise that the winds were changing and to issue the C560 clearance to Runway 02. My response was to give SAF Tower Control to change the landing runway since issuing a clearance to a runway other than the active runway on the ATIS broadcast was contrary to my understanding of the new order. Whenever a drastic change to long standing procedures are being issued; ensure that everyone involved; FAA personal; pilots; airlines and contract tower personnel; are briefed on a well thought out rule change to avoid this type of confusion and unsafe situations developing.




Synopsis: A ZAB Controller described a possible 'Opposite Direction' rule infraction during operations at SAF. The reporter indicated the briefings regarding Opposite Direction operations were less than desired.