Okay, Air Traffic Controllers Young and Old, time to do what you do best and give me a piece of your mind!!!
Although I feel like I have a better-than-average grasp on what ODO entails, and do not expect every single situation to have a cut-and-dry answer, I feel this specific situation is simply too complicated regarding how controllers at neighboring facilities have different opinions and interpretations pertaining to ODO's intended application.
A small Part139 facility has had problems in the past with an ARAC just jamming Opposite Direction Military Practice Approaches down their facility's throat without any regard to their local flying community. In the years past, I have personally experienced instances with VFR departing traffic from the duty runway, a small number of ARAC controllers were reluctant to build holes at times as they appear to believe the military opposite direction practice approaches have some sort of priority over duty runway traffic. Although the tower does from time to time accept delays while conducting ODO maneuvers, the neighboring ARAC controllers appear less and less willing to cooperate with what the tower feels is an attempt to maintain the integrity of the airport's traffic flow.
The ARAC used to assume the airport must take all their ODO traffic until the airport's Traffic Manager stepped in and reminded the ARAC's Manager with excerpts from the libraries as to why cooperation and coordination is key, though most of these assertions appeared to fall on deaf ears as several of the same floor controllers would make the same demands the very next day.
The ARAC has been shown 7110.65 Practice Approaches 4-8-11 where it clearly states that no IFR OR VFR traffic will be impeded for practice approaches(within reason). Because of their past unwillingness to cooperate and build holes for VFR departures, periodically the airport controllers are forced to deny practice approaches altogether until the departure or departures have taken place. Keep in mind, unless extreme conditions or emergencies dictate, the airport won't typically disapprove ODO already in progress, but a select few of the ARAC floor controllers along with the DoD ATC management element is making it very difficult to maintain integrity, structure and proper traffic flow at this Part139 facility with their demands.
Admittedly over the last several months, they've been much more cooperative regarding this specific situation, but it's still worth mentioning since they consistently ask for things the airport feels it cannot allow because procedures are not in place to allow safe execution of these maneuvers. A few months back, one of these ARAC Controllers was so brash as to ask the airport to solicit the local pilots to do pattern work to the off-duty rwy35, on a day the duty runway was clearly to be rwy17(wind 180 in excess of 10kts), just so they could continue to ram Opposite Direction Military Practice Approaches into the airport. It has now become practice while the duty rwy is 17 and the airport is conducting local pattern work to the duty rwy, the airport does not accept Opposite Direction IFR Practice Approaches(Military or Civil)-even though the ARAC consistently badgers the airport to take them- because with a runway under 9000 feet, the traffic pattern is short and tight and unless the timing is absolutely perfect, the separation doesn't exist to work a Military Trainer as an IFR ODO Practice Approach into rwy35 as the local pilot is turning left base to rwy17 basically every 30-60 seconds, and without tower radar displays a safe application of the FAA's 7/10 cutoff rule for ODO separation cannot be accurately applied. In an attempt to cooperate in the past, the airport would accept the ODO practice approach and have the local pattern pilot make 360's in the downwind leg until the Military Trainer was out of the way. The problem with that, is then the ARAC will attempt to jam in SEVERAL Military Trainers with minimal arrival separation between each arriving aircraft, which means the local pilot in the VFR pattern is now forced to remain circling east or west of the airfield, not getting even one pass of local pattern work in, ruining the integrity of what the airport is trying to provide their civil flying community. When this scenario was brought up to the ARAC Manager, he implied that the airport should get used to this and accept it as common practice. Therefore to alleviate the abuse of compromising the local pattern to give maximum priority to military practice approaches from the opposite direction, the airport does not allow them to do ODO practice approaches while local pattern work is being conducted to the duty runway. The airport also does not have radar capabilities, only a pair of 7x50 binoculars so it's extremely difficult for the airport's tower to safely and accurately set an ODO sequence while conducting local pattern work, couple that with multiple ODO military practice approaches and it's not exactly a recipe for success.
Although I feel like I have a solid understanding of ODO rules, Practice Approach Rules, Military Procedure rules and various other sections that govern a control tower's sound judgment, I can't help but feel like I'm missing something here, otherwise why else would the ARAC and Military Elements continually ask for something the airport feels they can't give them?
I'd tell you Controllers to respect each other's replies, but where the hell's the fun in that???
All replies are welcome, references are appreciated though common sense needs no reference. Time to weigh in, Ladies and Gentlemen, let the games begin!!!