Narrative:

I had just arrived in the tower cab; assumed responsibility for the controller in charge position. Right after I got a briefing I became aware that the local controller had a remos departing runway 9 from a touch and go (left traffic runway 9) and a PA28 executing a climb out (missed approach off runway 33 localizer approach) that placed the aircraft in very close proximity; airborne near the intersection of runway 9 and runway 33. I observed the PA28 passing either directly above; or above in very close lateral proximity (I estimate about 200 ft) above the remos who was airborne (probably 75 ft above runway 9) over runway 9 on the upwind leg following the touch and go. The remos became airborne; descended as the PA28 passed; and then continued in the traffic pattern. I asked the local controller about the event and he indicated that the PA28 was doing to fly the loc 33 missed approach; the implication was that; the missed approach was the method he was using to separate the two aircraft; even though the PA28 would likely overfly the remos as the remos was departing. I listened to the dalr recording of the event; and discovered that the local control had cleared the PA28 for the option on runway 33 at the same time the remos was on runway 9. Both controllers indicated they were not aware of any distractions in the operation during the event. Brief controllers on required separation for intersecting runway operations. There is also a lack of understanding whether the operation would have technically been legal if the PA28 has not been cleared to use runway 33 (which is what I believe the local controller was planning to use as separation between these two aircraft); and had just flown his missed approach over the remos.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower CIC witnessed a conflict event involving departing traffic and an aircraft on a missed approach; the reporter noted the Local Controller failed to ensure separation.

Narrative: I had just arrived in the Tower Cab; assumed responsibility for the CIC position. Right after I got a briefing I became aware that the Local Controller had a Remos departing Runway 9 from a touch and go (left traffic Runway 9) and a PA28 executing a climb out (missed approach off Runway 33 localizer approach) that placed the aircraft in very close proximity; airborne near the intersection of Runway 9 and Runway 33. I observed the PA28 passing either directly above; or above in very close lateral proximity (I estimate about 200 FT) above the Remos who was airborne (probably 75 FT above Runway 9) over Runway 9 on the upwind leg following the touch and go. The Remos became airborne; descended as the PA28 passed; and then continued in the traffic pattern. I asked the Local Controller about the event and he indicated that the PA28 was doing to fly the Loc 33 missed approach; the implication was that; the missed approach was the method he was using to separate the two aircraft; even though the PA28 would likely overfly the Remos as the Remos was departing. I listened to the DALR recording of the event; and discovered that the Local Control had cleared the PA28 for the OPTION on Runway 33 at the same time the Remos was on Runway 9. Both controllers indicated they were NOT aware of any distractions in the operation during the event. Brief controllers on required separation for intersecting runway operations. There is also a lack of understanding whether the operation would have technically been legal if the PA28 has not been cleared to use Runway 33 (which is what I believe the Local Controller was planning to use as separation between these two aircraft); and had just flown his missed approach over the Remos.

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.