Fai controller described min spaced arrival vs departure incident; claiming FAA's tiph procedures li...

Attributes
ACN	754979
Time
Date	200709
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : fai.airport
State Reference	AK
Altitude	msl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Beech 1900
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	landing : roll
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : fai.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : takeoff roll
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller radar : 3
ASRS Report	754979
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	FAA
Primary Problem	FAA

Narrative:

Aircraft #1 was 2 mi final; 120 KTS. I cleared aircraft #2 for takeoff. A third aircraft (B190) had just landed and was nearing the taxiway that he had been instructed to use to exit the runway. Aircraft #1 was unhappy about aircraft #2 departing in front of him. Proper runway separation was provided. I am also unhappy about this situation. Across the country and particularly at midsized and small facilities; taxi into position and hold procedures are not being allowed. Without tiph my fellow controllers are in the awkward position of guessing whether the gap on final allows for a departure. Contrary to the belief of the FAA; this guesswork is not as safe as tiph. I believe that tiph had issues and needed to be reformed; but what we are doing in the field today is completely unsafe. The situation above was tight; but it had worked the day prior. I have altered my operation due to the above situation. I will suppress the desire to efficiently move aircraft; even if it means requesting more spacing on final from the approach controller.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAI CTLR DESCRIBED MIN SPACED ARR VS DEP INCIDENT; CLAIMING FAA'S TIPH PROCS LIMIT CTLRS' SPACING TECHNIQUES AND QUESTIONS ITS SAFETY.

Narrative: ACFT #1 WAS 2 MI FINAL; 120 KTS. I CLRED ACFT #2 FOR TKOF. A THIRD ACFT (B190) HAD JUST LANDED AND WAS NEARING THE TXWY THAT HE HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO USE TO EXIT THE RWY. ACFT #1 WAS UNHAPPY ABOUT ACFT #2 DEPARTING IN FRONT OF HIM. PROPER RWY SEPARATION WAS PROVIDED. I AM ALSO UNHAPPY ABOUT THIS SIT. ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND PARTICULARLY AT MIDSIZED AND SMALL FACILITIES; TAXI INTO POS AND HOLD PROCS ARE NOT BEING ALLOWED. WITHOUT TIPH MY FELLOW CTLRS ARE IN THE AWKWARD POS OF GUESSING WHETHER THE GAP ON FINAL ALLOWS FOR A DEP. CONTRARY TO THE BELIEF OF THE FAA; THIS GUESSWORK IS NOT AS SAFE AS TIPH. I BELIEVE THAT TIPH HAD ISSUES AND NEEDED TO BE REFORMED; BUT WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE FIELD TODAY IS COMPLETELY UNSAFE. THE SIT ABOVE WAS TIGHT; BUT IT HAD WORKED THE DAY PRIOR. I HAVE ALTERED MY OP DUE TO THE ABOVE SIT. I WILL SUPPRESS THE DESIRE TO EFFICIENTLY MOVE ACFT; EVEN IF IT MEANS REQUESTING MORE SPACING ON FINAL FROM THE APCH CTLR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.

Fai controller described min spaced arrival vs departure incident; claiming FAA's tiph procedures limit controllers' spacing techniques and questions its safety.