Narrative:

I was working the local control position combined with ground and flight data; and my front line manager was working the radar approach position. Runway 20 was in use; but the wind made runway 13 available as well. My manager was working two aircraft into rochester: aircraft X and aircraft Y. My manager called me over the land line to request a visual approach to runway 13 for aircraft X; which I approved. Aircraft Y continued for runway 20. When my manager shipped me the two aircraft; they were at similar airspeeds and altitudes; and less than three miles out from the airport. They were a dead tie to their respective runways. I told aircraft Y to turn in towards the runway in an effort to create more separation. I then brought the conflict to the attention of my manager at the approach position; to which she replied; 'tell him to slow down; make s-turns.' it was not feasible for me to resolve this situation; which would have resulted in a loss of runway separation at best; by allowing aircraft X to continue to the crossing runway. I broke aircraft X off his approach; had him report aircraft Y in sight to follow to runway 20; which the pilot did. Both aircraft landed without incident.when the radar controller has thirty to forty miles to ensure separation between two aircraft and no other aircraft are on frequency; it is not appropriate to hand the local controller a tie to the runway and expect them to sort out the conflict in three miles. The 7110.65 clearly states the radar controller has responsibility for the separation of radar arrivals unless visual separation is provided by the tower. This coordination was not accomplished. If we as radar controllers work multiple IFR arrivals by pointing them at the airport; clearing them for a visual and shipping them to tower without regard to how a situation may develop; we are not maintaining positive control or separation; and we are doing a great disservice to our pilots when the next controller has to take corrective action at the last minute.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RST Local Controller describes situation where two aircraft are tied for landing on intersecting runways. Controller elects to send one aircraft around to follow the other aircraft to the same runway.

Narrative: I was working the Local Control position combined with Ground and Flight Data; and my front Line Manager was working the Radar Approach position. Runway 20 was in use; but the wind made Runway 13 available as well. My manager was working two aircraft into Rochester: Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. My manager called me over the land line to request a visual approach to Runway 13 for Aircraft X; which I approved. Aircraft Y continued for Runway 20. When my manager shipped me the two aircraft; they were at similar airspeeds and altitudes; and less than three miles out from the airport. They were a dead tie to their respective runways. I told Aircraft Y to turn in towards the runway in an effort to create more separation. I then brought the conflict to the attention of my manager at the approach position; to which she replied; 'Tell him to slow down; make s-turns.' It was not feasible for me to resolve this situation; which would have resulted in a loss of runway separation at best; by allowing Aircraft X to continue to the crossing runway. I broke Aircraft X off his approach; had him report Aircraft Y in sight to follow to Runway 20; which the pilot did. Both aircraft landed without incident.When the Radar Controller has thirty to forty miles to ensure separation between two aircraft and no other aircraft are on frequency; it is not appropriate to hand the Local Controller a tie to the runway and expect them to sort out the conflict in three miles. The 7110.65 clearly states the Radar Controller has responsibility for the separation of radar arrivals unless visual separation is provided by the Tower. This coordination was not accomplished. If we as radar controllers work multiple IFR arrivals by pointing them at the airport; clearing them for a visual and shipping them to Tower without regard to how a situation may develop; we are not maintaining positive control or separation; and we are doing a great disservice to our pilots when the next controller has to take corrective action at the last minute.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.