Narrative:

A rockwell commander 114 had called the facility to coordinate a photo mission which would start over manhattan and go north to the george washington bridge. His equipment required that this photo mission was done at 3;200 feet. Lga was landing ILS 22 and departing runway 31 on 340 and 359 degree headings. Even though this proposed route would take the commander right through the lga departure path; which climbs to 5;000 feet; it was approved by managers in my facility and adjacent facilities. I was immediately concerned with this situation when I was told of it. When I addressed my concerns to my supervisor; I was told we would change to only a 359 degree heading off of lga to keep our departures out of the way of this VFR photo mission. As the commander got closer to the george washington bridge I realized how unsafe this situation was and called the tower to stop departures. Apparently the tower still had one more aircraft rolling on the runway and a crj-700 departed off of lga when the commander was 2 miles north of lga at 3;200 feet. The crj-700 was aiming right at the commander and climbing out of 2;000 feet when he checked in. I immediately turned him eastbound and expedited his climb in an attempt to ensure he was above the lga final that was 2 miles east of him. I pointed out the traffic and the crj-700 called the commander in sight. I instructed him to maintain visual separation with the commander; though I am concerned I did not have legal separation in time before visual separation was applied. The lga departure position was relocated to a different sector a few years ago to accommodate airspace/procedure changes that have since been canceled. While this all happened my flm was not even in the same sector as me to coordinate a departure stop himself. Recommendation; this extremely hazardous situation occurred because of horrible coordination between management and my flm. The pilot advised on the frequency that he has made the request to do this exact photo mission in the past; and it had always been denied because of this exact reason. Why would today make it any safer with these runway configurations? This never should have been approved. But once it was; and when I expressed my concerns to my supervisor; he should have either allowed me to keep the commander south of the lga 270 degree radial like I requested; or stopped the departures so we could evaluate the flight path of the photo mission. Also; having the departure position in a different sector than the lga flm and sequencer was a big problem. If my flm was over my shoulder watching the situation unfold; he could have possibly stopped departures sooner than myself; and the crj-700 would have never left the ground. Moving the lga departure scope back to its previous position will prevent a similar situation from happening again.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: N90 Controller described an unsafe condition resulting from a Management approved photo mission near LGA that required immediate action on the part of the reporter to avoid a conflict.

Narrative: A Rockwell Commander 114 had called the facility to coordinate a photo mission which would start over Manhattan and go North to the George Washington Bridge. His equipment required that this photo mission was done at 3;200 feet. LGA was landing ILS 22 and departing Runway 31 on 340 and 359 degree headings. Even though this proposed route would take the Commander right through the LGA departure path; which climbs to 5;000 feet; it was approved by managers in my facility and adjacent facilities. I was immediately concerned with this situation when I was told of it. When I addressed my concerns to my Supervisor; I was told we would change to only a 359 degree heading off of LGA to keep our departures out of the way of this VFR photo mission. As the Commander got closer to the George Washington Bridge I realized how unsafe this situation was and called the Tower to stop departures. Apparently the Tower still had one more aircraft rolling on the runway and a CRJ-700 departed off of LGA when the Commander was 2 miles north of LGA at 3;200 feet. The CRJ-700 was aiming right at the Commander and climbing out of 2;000 feet when he checked in. I immediately turned him eastbound and expedited his climb in an attempt to ensure he was above the LGA final that was 2 miles east of him. I pointed out the traffic and the CRJ-700 called the Commander in sight. I instructed him to maintain visual separation with the Commander; though I am concerned I did not have legal separation in time before visual separation was applied. The LGA departure position was relocated to a different sector a few years ago to accommodate airspace/procedure changes that have since been canceled. While this all happened my FLM was not even in the same sector as me to coordinate a departure stop himself. Recommendation; this extremely hazardous situation occurred because of horrible coordination between Management and my FLM. The pilot advised on the frequency that he has made the request to do this exact photo mission in the past; and it had always been denied because of this exact reason. Why would today make it any safer with these runway configurations? This never should have been approved. But once it was; and when I expressed my concerns to my Supervisor; he should have either allowed me to keep the Commander south of the LGA 270 degree radial like I requested; or stopped the departures so we could evaluate the flight path of the photo mission. Also; having the departure position in a different sector than the LGA FLM and sequencer was a big problem. If my FLM was over my shoulder watching the situation unfold; he could have possibly stopped departures sooner than myself; and the CRJ-700 would have never left the ground. Moving the LGA departure scope back to its previous position will prevent a similar situation from happening again.

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.