Narrative:

As a result of runway incursion accident at lax, the FAA forwarded/implemented a directive that stated 'no intersection departure between sunset and sunrise.' our supervisor briefed our crew stating 'if there isn't any conflicting traffic, intersection departures are still authority/authorized. If you have to taxi aircraft into position and hold, don't do it, but if you can clear aircraft for takeoff, its allowed.' nowhere in FAA directive did I read about 'under certain situations its allowed.' msp tower is still authorizing intersection departures after dark. We need to have a clear definition if we are to be held accountable. If intersection departures after dark are authority/authorized 'if no conflicting traffic exists.' what is considered conflicting traffic, we feel that our management locally, is interpreting this directive creatively to have minimum impact on our operation. What's the real story? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter stated he was the union safety rep at the time the report was filed. He had recently been reassigned to the procedures department. Now believes that facility interpretation is correct. No incidents resulted because of interpretation. Reporter also gave time as controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CTLR BELIEVES FAC MANAGEMENTS INTERP OF INTERSECTION TKOFS IS NOT CONSISTANT WITH FAA DIRECTIVE.

Narrative: AS A RESULT OF RWY INCURSION ACCIDENT AT LAX, THE FAA FORWARDED/IMPLEMENTED A DIRECTIVE THAT STATED 'NO INTXN DEP BTWN SUNSET AND SUNRISE.' OUR SUPVR BRIEFED OUR CREW STATING 'IF THERE ISN'T ANY CONFLICTING TFC, INTXN DEPS ARE STILL AUTH. IF YOU HAVE TO TAXI ACFT INTO POS AND HOLD, DON'T DO IT, BUT IF YOU CAN CLR ACFT FOR TKOF, ITS ALLOWED.' NOWHERE IN FAA DIRECTIVE DID I READ ABOUT 'UNDER CERTAIN SITUATIONS ITS ALLOWED.' MSP TWR IS STILL AUTHORIZING INTXN DEPS AFTER DARK. WE NEED TO HAVE A CLR DEFINITION IF WE ARE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. IF INTXN DEPS AFTER DARK ARE AUTH 'IF NO CONFLICTING TFC EXISTS.' WHAT IS CONSIDERED CONFLICTING TFC, WE FEEL THAT OUR MGMNT LOCALLY, IS INTERPRETING THIS DIRECTIVE CREATIVELY TO HAVE MINIMUM IMPACT ON OUR OPERATION. WHAT'S THE REAL STORY? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR STATED HE WAS THE UNION SAFETY REP AT THE TIME THE RPT WAS FILED. HE HAD RECENTLY BEEN REASSIGNED TO THE PROCS DEPT. NOW BELIEVES THAT FAC INTERP IS CORRECT. NO INCIDENTS RESULTED BECAUSE OF INTERP. RPTR ALSO GAVE TIME AS CTLR.

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.