Narrative:

I was working ground control and flight data positions. The other controller was working local control. I overheard that 2 of her 5 aircraft being worked were inbound for touch and goes. When small aircraft X reported his 'left base for runway 3,' I heard the controller clear that aircraft for touch and go on runway 3. I observed small aircraft Y on left base for runway 29, but then became busy with ground control and flight data duties. I did not hear the clearance issued to small aircraft Y on base for 29, however a few seconds later, I looked over to see both small aircraft X and small aircraft Y on departure clbouts for intersecting runways. Small aircraft Y was about 50' below, and 1100' to the right, of small aircraft X when small aircraft X had completed passing through the runway intersection. I asked the controller if she knew small aircraft Y was touch and go also, and she said, 'no,' although I had heard small aircraft Y state he was inbound for touch and goes. I then relieved this controller from position. This situation should not have happened! When this controller was certified (several mgrs ago), the tower was 'hurting for people.' this controller, 'has a history' of 'deals,' although apparently, no corrective action has been taken by management. This controller's performance is always 'satisfactory' when management is around, however, I am not the first controller to ever witness this type of dangerous situation. I am unable to speculate how this type of situation can be remedied, since it is management's responsibility to determine certification.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 2 SMA'S WERE CLEARED FOR TOUCH AND GO ON INTERSECTING RWYS AND CAME IN CLOSE PROX TO EACH OTHER AT THE RWY INTERSECTION.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING GND CTL AND FLT DATA POSITIONS. THE OTHER CTLR WAS WORKING LCL CTL. I OVERHEARD THAT 2 OF HER 5 ACFT BEING WORKED WERE INBND FOR TOUCH AND GOES. WHEN SMA X RPTED HIS 'LEFT BASE FOR RWY 3,' I HEARD THE CTLR CLR THAT ACFT FOR TOUCH AND GO ON RWY 3. I OBSERVED SMA Y ON LEFT BASE FOR RWY 29, BUT THEN BECAME BUSY WITH GND CTL AND FLT DATA DUTIES. I DID NOT HEAR THE CLRNC ISSUED TO SMA Y ON BASE FOR 29, HOWEVER A FEW SECS LATER, I LOOKED OVER TO SEE BOTH SMA X AND SMA Y ON DEP CLBOUTS FOR INTERSECTING RWYS. SMA Y WAS ABOUT 50' BELOW, AND 1100' TO THE RIGHT, OF SMA X WHEN SMA X HAD COMPLETED PASSING THROUGH THE RWY INTXN. I ASKED THE CTLR IF SHE KNEW SMA Y WAS TOUCH AND GO ALSO, AND SHE SAID, 'NO,' ALTHOUGH I HAD HEARD SMA Y STATE HE WAS INBND FOR TOUCH AND GOES. I THEN RELIEVED THIS CTLR FROM POS. THIS SITUATION SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED! WHEN THIS CTLR WAS CERTIFIED (SEVERAL MGRS AGO), THE TWR WAS 'HURTING FOR PEOPLE.' THIS CTLR, 'HAS A HISTORY' OF 'DEALS,' ALTHOUGH APPARENTLY, NO CORRECTIVE ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY MGMNT. THIS CTLR'S PERFORMANCE IS ALWAYS 'SATISFACTORY' WHEN MGMNT IS AROUND, HOWEVER, I AM NOT THE FIRST CTLR TO EVER WITNESS THIS TYPE OF DANGEROUS SITUATION. I AM UNABLE TO SPECULATE HOW THIS TYPE OF SITUATION CAN BE REMEDIED, SINCE IT IS MGMNT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE CERTIFICATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.