2 aircraft cleared for approachs to intersecting runways result in go around conflict.

Attributes
ACN	547686
Time
Date	200205
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ewr.airport
State Reference	NJ
Altitude	agl single value : 600
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : ewr.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Widebody, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : ewr.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 5000 flight time type : 1700
ASRS Report	547686
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne critical non adherence : required legal separation non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	flight crew : executed go around flight crew : returned to original clearance other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Miss Distance	horizontal : 10000 vertical : 100
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Error

Narrative:

We were on approach for runway 22L and another aircraft was on approach for runway 29. Spacing looked tight, so controller gave us an s-turn, but it didn't really help. Crossed lndgs looked like it was going to be a conflict, so we initiated a go around. But, so did other aircraft, climbing up to us and turning left going belly up to us. We elected to land, rather than compound the conflict in the air. Talked to tower supervisor on ground who agreed we took the safest course of action. Believe spacing issue arose because of heavy winds affecting ground speed between landing aircraft (wind 300 degrees at 15 KTS gusting to 25 KTS). Next time, I would go around earlier when it became apparent that spacing was too tight and since other aircraft had landing clearance first, wouldn't attempt s-turn. Glad we spoke with tower supervisor to share information and pass on lessons learned.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 2 ACFT CLRED FOR APCHS TO INTERSECTING RWYS RESULT IN GAR CONFLICT.

Narrative: WE WERE ON APCH FOR RWY 22L AND ANOTHER ACFT WAS ON APCH FOR RWY 29. SPACING LOOKED TIGHT, SO CTLR GAVE US AN S-TURN, BUT IT DIDN'T REALLY HELP. CROSSED LNDGS LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GOING TO BE A CONFLICT, SO WE INITIATED A GAR. BUT, SO DID OTHER ACFT, CLBING UP TO US AND TURNING L GOING BELLY UP TO US. WE ELECTED TO LAND, RATHER THAN COMPOUND THE CONFLICT IN THE AIR. TALKED TO TWR SUPVR ON GND WHO AGREED WE TOOK THE SAFEST COURSE OF ACTION. BELIEVE SPACING ISSUE AROSE BECAUSE OF HVY WINDS AFFECTING GND SPD BTWN LNDG ACFT (WIND 300 DEGS AT 15 KTS GUSTING TO 25 KTS). NEXT TIME, I WOULD GO AROUND EARLIER WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT SPACING WAS TOO TIGHT AND SINCE OTHER ACFT HAD LNDG CLRNC FIRST, WOULDN'T ATTEMPT S-TURN. GLAD WE SPOKE WITH TWR SUPVR TO SHARE INFO AND PASS ON LESSONS LEARNED.

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.