Tower local controller questioned by departure control, regarding clearing a B737 for takeoff when an MD80 is on an emergency 8 mi final to the opposite end runway, if standard separation would be maintained. Tower controller answered that separation would be maintained.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	474410
Time
Date	200006
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : jfk.airport
State Reference	NY
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : jfk.tower tower : fai.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : jfk.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	climbout : initial climbout : takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : radar pilot : instrument pilot : private
Experience	controller limited radar : 11 controller non radar : 6 controller time certified in position1 : 11 flight time total : 4400
ASRS Report	474410
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : departure
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : separated traffic other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance

Narrative:

Runway confign was land runway 31R and depart runway 31L. Aircraft #1 was an emergency inbound to runway 13R with engine oil qty loss. Aircraft #2 was on runway 31L awaiting departure. In my judgement, aircraft #1 was far enough out for runway 13R (about 8 mi) that I had enough time to depart aircraft #2 and turn sbound to avoid conflict. In my opinion, the alternative of taxiing aircraft #2 down the runway to a taxiway to exit was not viable, in that aircraft #2 might not clear in time for aircraft #1 to land. At no time was separation lost (both radar and visual separation was maintained by me). The departure controller called, concerned about separation between aircraft #1 and #2. I advised that separation would be maintained.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TWR LCL CTLR QUESTIONED BY DEP CTL, REGARDING CLRING A B737 FOR TKOF WHEN AN MD80 IS ON AN EMER 8 MI FINAL TO THE OPPOSITE END RWY, IF STANDARD SEPARATION WOULD BE MAINTAINED. TWR CTLR ANSWERED THAT SEPARATION WOULD BE MAINTAINED.

Narrative: RWY CONFIGN WAS LAND RWY 31R AND DEPART RWY 31L. ACFT #1 WAS AN EMER INBOUND TO RWY 13R WITH ENG OIL QTY LOSS. ACFT #2 WAS ON RWY 31L AWAITING DEP. IN MY JUDGEMENT, ACFT #1 WAS FAR ENOUGH OUT FOR RWY 13R (ABOUT 8 MI) THAT I HAD ENOUGH TIME TO DEPART ACFT #2 AND TURN SBOUND TO AVOID CONFLICT. IN MY OPINION, THE ALTERNATIVE OF TAXIING ACFT #2 DOWN THE RWY TO A TXWY TO EXIT WAS NOT VIABLE, IN THAT ACFT #2 MIGHT NOT CLR IN TIME FOR ACFT #1 TO LAND. AT NO TIME WAS SEPARATION LOST (BOTH RADAR AND VISUAL SEPARATION WAS MAINTAINED BY ME). THE DEP CTLR CALLED, CONCERNED ABOUT SEPARATION BTWN ACFT #1 AND #2. I ADVISED THAT SEPARATION WOULD BE MAINTAINED.

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.