Narrative:

When runway 10 is in use at pdx, I believe a situation exists that is potentially unsafe. Reference the river 4 departure and the bonvl 1 arrival. The river 4 departure climbs outbnd on the pdx 085 degree right. The bonvl 1 arrival descends inbound on the pdx 259 degree right. River 4 turbojet departures can't be turned until the pdx 11 DME for noise abatement. So, this arrival and departure are aimed at each other and vertical sep must be applied. All pdx turbojet departures are assigned 900'. All runway 10 arrs on the bonvl are assigned 13000'. 13000' is the top of pdx approach airspace. If you have no inbound traffic on the bonvl and a departure comes off on the river 4 you say, 'radar contact climb and maintain 13000'.' then you fly out and accept a handoff inbound on the bonvl from ZSE. Now you have 2 arrival turbojets aimed at each other and assigned the same altitude. Still 30 mi apart but closing at approximately 10 mi/min and you can't turn the departure until the pdx 11 DME for noise abatement. You're going to lose separation at the 11 DME unless some action is taken to resolve the situation. Reestablished vertical? Turn the arrival? Something. That's what controllers are for. But what if the departure loses his transponder and his data tag drops off, or the controller gets busy with the other 10-15 planes he is working in the pdx north sector, or anyone of many 'what if's' happen to distract the controller. As a controller at pdx for the last 10 yrs, I've had to make too many last minute changes on this procedure to keep from losing sep, which leads me to believe we should do something to build in a more positive type of sep. 1) change the bonvl arrival so it won't conflict with the river 4 departure. 2) a facility order to not allow a climb out of 9000' until clear of the arrival airspace. I've discussed this issue with all the facility management to no avail. Summary: it seems to me to be foolish to have a major arrival and departure aimed at each other with the potential to lose vertical sep for 1 reason or another.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: STAR ARR ROUTE AND AN SID DEP ROUTE CONVERGE ALMOST HEAD-ON.

Narrative: WHEN RWY 10 IS IN USE AT PDX, I BELIEVE A SITUATION EXISTS THAT IS POTENTIALLY UNSAFE. REF THE RIVER 4 DEP AND THE BONVL 1 ARR. THE RIVER 4 DEP CLBS OUTBND ON THE PDX 085 DEG R. THE BONVL 1 ARR DSNDS INBND ON THE PDX 259 DEG R. RIVER 4 TURBOJET DEPS CAN'T BE TURNED UNTIL THE PDX 11 DME FOR NOISE ABATEMENT. SO, THIS ARR AND DEP ARE AIMED AT EACH OTHER AND VERT SEP MUST BE APPLIED. ALL PDX TURBOJET DEPS ARE ASSIGNED 900'. ALL RWY 10 ARRS ON THE BONVL ARE ASSIGNED 13000'. 13000' IS THE TOP OF PDX APCH AIRSPACE. IF YOU HAVE NO INBND TFC ON THE BONVL AND A DEP COMES OFF ON THE RIVER 4 YOU SAY, 'RADAR CONTACT CLB AND MAINTAIN 13000'.' THEN YOU FLY OUT AND ACCEPT A HDOF INBND ON THE BONVL FROM ZSE. NOW YOU HAVE 2 ARR TURBOJETS AIMED AT EACH OTHER AND ASSIGNED THE SAME ALT. STILL 30 MI APART BUT CLOSING AT APPROX 10 MI/MIN AND YOU CAN'T TURN THE DEP UNTIL THE PDX 11 DME FOR NOISE ABATEMENT. YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE SEPARATION AT THE 11 DME UNLESS SOME ACTION IS TAKEN TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION. REESTABLISHED VERT? TURN THE ARR? SOMETHING. THAT'S WHAT CTLRS ARE FOR. BUT WHAT IF THE DEP LOSES HIS XPONDER AND HIS DATA TAG DROPS OFF, OR THE CTLR GETS BUSY WITH THE OTHER 10-15 PLANES HE IS WORKING IN THE PDX N SECTOR, OR ANYONE OF MANY 'WHAT IF'S' HAPPEN TO DISTRACT THE CTLR. AS A CTLR AT PDX FOR THE LAST 10 YRS, I'VE HAD TO MAKE TOO MANY LAST MINUTE CHANGES ON THIS PROC TO KEEP FROM LOSING SEP, WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING TO BUILD IN A MORE POSITIVE TYPE OF SEP. 1) CHANGE THE BONVL ARR SO IT WON'T CONFLICT WITH THE RIVER 4 DEP. 2) A FACILITY ORDER TO NOT ALLOW A CLB OUT OF 9000' UNTIL CLR OF THE ARR AIRSPACE. I'VE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE WITH ALL THE FACILITY MGMNT TO NO AVAIL. SUMMARY: IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE FOOLISH TO HAVE A MAJOR ARR AND DEP AIMED AT EACH OTHER WITH THE POTENTIAL TO LOSE VERT SEP FOR 1 REASON OR ANOTHER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.