Narrative:

On initial call, approach told us to expect runway 33 at bdl. A few mins later, we were cleared direct to the bdl OM for runway 33. Approach control had not restr our speed. Within 7 mi of the OM, we heard approach also vectoring another airline jet aircraft for landing on intersecting runway 24. He was handed off to tower ahead of us. We broke out of the overcast and acquired the other aircraft visually and were concerned both our aircraft and the conflict traffic were relatively the same distance from the airport on approach. We immediately dropped the gear and began significantly reducing airspeed. Approach soon asked us to slow to 180 KTS (we were already slowing through 170 KTS toward approach speed). Approach handed us off to tower on a 3 mi final with the conflict aircraft on a 2 mi final for the crossing runway. The tower controller offered us s-turns to increase the separation. At 1500 ft and flaps 40 degrees, we told the controller we would circle for runway 24, as it still looked like it would be a little close. The controller declined, saying he would have to take us out for a long final that way. On short approach, the other aircraft had stopped prior to the intersecting runway and stated to tower he was holding short of the runway 33 intersection. We landed uneventfully. In a subsequent conversation with the local controller, he said approach gave him both aircraft at the last min with minimum separation and his options were limited. I would recommend: 1) if separation is a problem, aircraft should not be routinely vectored for crossing runways. 2) if being so vectored, more approach control attention be paid to managing their respective airspds. 3) local control be biased toward accepting a flight crew's suggestion for circling if the flight crew feels separation may be inadequate. When the controller declined to have us circle, our only option was a go around from short final in the event we could not increase separation between present position and the runway. 4) this seems to be a problem at some of the smaller airports in the northeast, especially bdl and isp. More attention to training for jet operator speeds may be appropriate for the regional controllers there.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 CREW WAS SEQUENCED WITH A LNDG ACR ACFT ON AN INTERSECTING RWY WITH ONLY 1 MI SPACING.

Narrative: ON INITIAL CALL, APCH TOLD US TO EXPECT RWY 33 AT BDL. A FEW MINS LATER, WE WERE CLRED DIRECT TO THE BDL OM FOR RWY 33. APCH CTL HAD NOT RESTR OUR SPD. WITHIN 7 MI OF THE OM, WE HEARD APCH ALSO VECTORING ANOTHER AIRLINE JET ACFT FOR LNDG ON INTERSECTING RWY 24. HE WAS HANDED OFF TO TWR AHEAD OF US. WE BROKE OUT OF THE OVCST AND ACQUIRED THE OTHER ACFT VISUALLY AND WERE CONCERNED BOTH OUR ACFT AND THE CONFLICT TFC WERE RELATIVELY THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE ARPT ON APCH. WE IMMEDIATELY DROPPED THE GEAR AND BEGAN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING AIRSPD. APCH SOON ASKED US TO SLOW TO 180 KTS (WE WERE ALREADY SLOWING THROUGH 170 KTS TOWARD APCH SPD). APCH HANDED US OFF TO TWR ON A 3 MI FINAL WITH THE CONFLICT ACFT ON A 2 MI FINAL FOR THE XING RWY. THE TWR CTLR OFFERED US S-TURNS TO INCREASE THE SEPARATION. AT 1500 FT AND FLAPS 40 DEGS, WE TOLD THE CTLR WE WOULD CIRCLE FOR RWY 24, AS IT STILL LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD BE A LITTLE CLOSE. THE CTLR DECLINED, SAYING HE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE US OUT FOR A LONG FINAL THAT WAY. ON SHORT APCH, THE OTHER ACFT HAD STOPPED PRIOR TO THE INTERSECTING RWY AND STATED TO TWR HE WAS HOLDING SHORT OF THE RWY 33 INTXN. WE LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. IN A SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION WITH THE LCL CTLR, HE SAID APCH GAVE HIM BOTH ACFT AT THE LAST MIN WITH MINIMUM SEPARATION AND HIS OPTIONS WERE LIMITED. I WOULD RECOMMEND: 1) IF SEPARATION IS A PROB, ACFT SHOULD NOT BE ROUTINELY VECTORED FOR XING RWYS. 2) IF BEING SO VECTORED, MORE APCH CTL ATTN BE PAID TO MANAGING THEIR RESPECTIVE AIRSPDS. 3) LCL CTL BE BIASED TOWARD ACCEPTING A FLT CREW'S SUGGESTION FOR CIRCLING IF THE FLT CREW FEELS SEPARATION MAY BE INADEQUATE. WHEN THE CTLR DECLINED TO HAVE US CIRCLE, OUR ONLY OPTION WAS A GAR FROM SHORT FINAL IN THE EVENT WE COULD NOT INCREASE SEPARATION BTWN PRESENT POS AND THE RWY. 4) THIS SEEMS TO BE A PROB AT SOME OF THE SMALLER ARPTS IN THE NE, ESPECIALLY BDL AND ISP. MORE ATTN TO TRAINING FOR JET OPERATOR SPDS MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE REGIONAL CTLRS THERE.

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.