Narrative:

Although I marked 'unsafe situation' I do not think that there was any unsafe situation. This is a failure to follow procedure that has a limited; if any; impact on safety. The controller at local control 1 issued luaw to a mooney after preceding departure. At the time; there were no other aircraft on frequency or inbound to the airport sequenced to the runway. At that time; an experimental called inbound from north; prior to [that] adequate runway spacing was attained to allow for take off clearance to be issued to the mooney. Rather than wait the few seconds for runway spacing to be attained and the mooney could be cleared for takeoff; the controller elected to answer the inbound experimental and issued pattern entry instructions. The controller failed to issue traffic to the luaw aircraft and the inbound aircraft involved; thereby resulting in non-compliance with a national procedure (traffic was not issued to both the luaw aircraft and the aircraft inbound to the runway where another aircraft was in position). On previous occasions when I have been in the controller in charge position I have noted the need to follow the new luaw procedures. I suggest that the agency either get rid of luaw altogether or give us a waiver so we do not need to issue the traffic to both the luaw aircraft and the aircraft inbound to the runway where another aircraft was in position as required in the order. As it is; the procedure leads to misapplication and delays for traffic when controllers attempt to use it correctly. To me; a controller who has used tiph for decades before it was denuded into the useless air traffic tool it is; the rule has an analogy in the world of tools. By revising the previous tiph rules to the existing luaw rules; it is like taking a perfectly good phillips screwdriver and grinding down the end to a perfect cylinder.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower Controller described a non-compliance event involving the LUAW procedures noting the new requirements are less than efficient and changes should be considered.

Narrative: Although I marked 'Unsafe Situation' I do not think that there was any unsafe situation. This is a failure to follow procedure that has a limited; if any; impact on safety. The Controller at Local Control 1 issued LUAW to a Mooney after preceding departure. At the time; there were no other aircraft on frequency or inbound to the airport sequenced to the runway. At that time; an experimental called inbound from north; prior to [that] adequate runway spacing was attained to allow for take off clearance to be issued to the Mooney. Rather than wait the few seconds for runway spacing to be attained and the Mooney could be cleared for takeoff; the Controller elected to answer the inbound experimental and issued pattern entry instructions. The Controller failed to issue traffic to the LUAW aircraft and the inbound aircraft involved; thereby resulting in non-compliance with a national procedure (traffic was not issued to both the LUAW aircraft and the aircraft inbound to the runway where another aircraft was in position). On previous occasions when I have been in the CIC position I have noted the need to follow the new LUAW procedures. I suggest that the agency either get rid of LUAW altogether or give us a waiver so we do not need to issue the traffic to both the LUAW aircraft and the aircraft inbound to the runway where another aircraft was in position as required in the order. As it is; the procedure leads to misapplication and delays for traffic when controllers attempt to use it correctly. To me; a controller who has used TIPH for decades before it was denuded into the useless air traffic tool it is; the rule has an analogy in the world of tools. By revising the previous TIPH rules to the existing LUAW rules; it is like taking a perfectly good Phillips screwdriver and grinding down the end to a perfect cylinder.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.