Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ROA.Airport, VA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ROA
ATC / advisory: Tower ROA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was informed that I misapplied opposite direction rule regarding a CRJ2 and a C182. ROA was advertising visual approaches to Runway 6 and departing Runway 16. The C182 requested GPS to 24 with published miss and clearance to next destination. Because we were not departing Runway 6 and the C182 would not over fly the surface area when on the published miss; I did not think this was an instance of opposite direction. The C182 was cleared for the approach with instructions to execute the published missed approach at the missed approach point and given his clearance to the next destination; and all was coordinated with local. The CRJ2 was vectored for a visual approach to Runway 6 and had trouble seeing the field due to deteriorating weather unknown to me. He reported the field and was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 6; told about the traffic that would go miss; and then switched to tower. He came back to me while on 3 mile final at 037 and the C182 was at the missed approach point and should be turning south. I told the CRJ2 to climb to 052 and turn left to 360; he continued to descend another 400 FT then began his turn and the C182 appeared to continue past the missed approach point. Due to the RADAR cone; the RADAR auto track of the C182 over the runway cannot be trusted. The CRJ2 reported responding to RA and descended with terrain in sight. The C182 jumped south of the field on the RADAR once out of the cone and the CRJ2 reported complete with the RA. He was then re sequenced to the airport. I did not understand that this situation was considered opposite direction. The briefing and information provided seemed to apply to single runway operations so it was my understanding the opposite direction rules would apply to arriving Runway 34 or departing Runway 24 because we were arriving Runway 6 and departing Runway 16. When they added information regarding arrival opposite direction; I thought it only applied to landing aircraft; because logically if one aircraft was going miss prior to the runway their paths should never cross. Our airport uses multiple runways every day due to pilot requirements/requests and to make our operation efficient. I understand our facility is now in the process of clarifying the rules as they apply to our airport.




Synopsis: ROA Controller described a TCAS RA event involving a practice approach and another arrival to different runways; the reporter was informed that 'opposite direction procedures' were misapplied in this instance.