Narrative:

This event occurred during a training session (in which I was training--my instructor filed a report for this incident as well).air carrier X; while on short final; went around (on its own) due to an 'unstable approach'. A heading and altitude were issued to keep this aircraft laterally separated from air carrier Y; which had already been cleared for takeoff and had started its departure roll. Air carrier Y reported air carrier X in sight and stated that it would maintain visual separation (which was authorized by ATC). A subsequent departure; air carrier Z; was erroneously issued a takeoff clearance rather than a line-up-and-wait (luaw) clearance; so this aircraft was unfortunately 'thrown into the mix'. Air carrier Z was assigned a heading and altitude below air carrier Y; so separation was never lost between any of the aircraft noted in this report. However; when air carrier Z was stopped at 2;000 ft.; this aircraft eventually conflicted with a teb arrival (being handled by N90) descending out of 2;000 ft.; without the required 3 NM lateral separation.in the event of go-around; ewr tower has a missed approach procedure that conflicts with its standard departure procedure. This is because of airspace limitations: teb traffic is descending to the west and laguardia airspace is to the east. There is very little room to separate aircraft in this narrow corridor of airspace (ewr's northeast flow: arriving runway 4R; departing runway 4L). Airspace changes should definitely be made to ensure a safer flow of traffic--at the minimum; the SID and the missed approach procedure should not be in conflict!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EWR Tower Developmental reports about SID and Airspace conflictions and the need to change airspace or SID due to conflictions.

Narrative: This event occurred during a training session (in which I was training--my instructor filed a report for this incident as well).Air Carrier X; while on short final; went around (on its own) due to an 'unstable approach'. A heading and altitude were issued to keep this aircraft laterally separated from Air Carrier Y; which had already been cleared for takeoff and had started its departure roll. Air Carrier Y reported Air Carrier X in sight and stated that it would maintain visual separation (which was authorized by ATC). A subsequent departure; Air Carrier Z; was erroneously issued a takeoff clearance rather than a Line-Up-And-Wait (LUAW) clearance; so this aircraft was unfortunately 'thrown into the mix'. Air Carrier Z was assigned a heading and altitude below Air Carrier Y; so separation was never lost between any of the aircraft noted in this report. However; when Air Carrier Z was stopped at 2;000 FT.; this aircraft eventually conflicted with a TEB arrival (being handled by N90) descending out of 2;000 FT.; without the required 3 NM lateral separation.In the event of go-around; EWR Tower has a missed approach procedure that conflicts with its standard departure procedure. This is because of airspace limitations: TEB traffic is descending to the west and LaGuardia airspace is to the east. There is very little room to separate aircraft in this narrow corridor of airspace (EWR's NE Flow: Arriving Runway 4R; Departing Runway 4L). Airspace changes should definitely be made to ensure a safer flow of traffic--at the MINIMUM; the SID and the missed approach procedure should NOT be in conflict!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.