Narrative:

I was training a cpc (certified professional controller)/it (in training) on local control. The configuration was bridge visual 29 approach; ILS 4R approach; depart 4L & depart 29. The winds were gusting that day and caused us to use an approach (bridge visual) that we don't normally use since we were told it was unsafe. The trainee and I had observed the situation before we took the position to see how the aircraft were performing. The trainee and I both agreed that the situation was going to work; but when the aircraft X became airborne he unexpectedly encountered a gust of wind that caused him to slow down in the air. This combined with the fact that the approach facility wasn't providing us with the coordinated mileage in trail caused us to run constant squeeze plays. We attempted to keep the aircraft away from each other by issuing runway heading to the aircraft X; which they complied with; so he wouldn't turn towards the aircraft Y as per the SID (newark 1 departure). After the aircraft X dropped off of the asde-X; they reacquired on the asde-X and the audio/visual warning appeared stating that the two aircraft were converging. The aircraft Y was already on a landing roll and the aircraft X was still climbing.I believe the bridge visual 29 approach should never be utilized. It makes it very hard for both the approach & local controllers to gauge the necessary spacing to allow gaps for departing aircraft to depart. It puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the local controller to constantly adjust the final. Combine this with the over delivering on arrival rates from the approach control facility and the unfamiliarity with the pilots make this approach very dangerous. We've even witnessed some pilots flying an entirely different approach (the RNAV Z 29) because it's a more stable turn onto final and/or they simply don't have the bridge visual chart onboard. Furthermore; we've always been told that aircraft climbing through 200 feet shouldn't be within the capture area of the asde-X; yet on more than one than one occasion we have gotten alerts. The asde-X should also be taken out of service until that problem can be worked out.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EWR Tower Instructor and Developmental report of a squeeze play attributed to NY TRACON not providing enough spacing for the configuration they were in. Aircraft departs and slows due to a headwind and the ASDE-X display goes into alert with an aircraft on final to another runway. Controllers complain about the Bridge Visual and its poor procedure.

Narrative: I was training a CPC (Certified Professional Controller)/IT (In Training) on Local Control. The configuration was Bridge Visual 29 Approach; ILS 4R Approach; Depart 4L & Depart 29. The winds were gusting that day and caused us to use an approach (Bridge Visual) that we don't normally use since we were told it was unsafe. The trainee and I had observed the situation before we took the position to see how the aircraft were performing. The trainee and I both agreed that the situation was going to work; but when the Aircraft X became airborne he unexpectedly encountered a gust of wind that caused him to slow down in the air. This combined with the fact that the approach facility wasn't providing us with the coordinated mileage in trail caused us to run constant squeeze plays. We attempted to keep the aircraft away from each other by issuing runway heading to the Aircraft X; which they complied with; so he wouldn't turn towards the Aircraft Y as per the SID (Newark 1 Departure). After the Aircraft X dropped off of the ASDE-X; they reacquired on the ASDE-X and the audio/visual warning appeared stating that the two aircraft were converging. The Aircraft Y was already on a landing roll and the Aircraft X was still climbing.I believe the Bridge Visual 29 Approach should never be utilized. It makes it very hard for both the Approach & Local controllers to gauge the necessary spacing to allow gaps for departing aircraft to depart. It puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the Local controller to constantly adjust the final. Combine this with the over delivering on arrival rates from the approach control facility and the unfamiliarity with the pilots make this approach very dangerous. We've even witnessed some pilots flying an entirely different approach (the RNAV Z 29) because it's a more stable turn onto final and/or they simply don't have the Bridge Visual chart onboard. Furthermore; we've always been told that aircraft climbing through 200 feet shouldn't be within the capture area of the ASDE-X; yet on more than one than one occasion we have gotten alerts. The ASDE-X should also be taken out of service until that problem can be worked out.

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.