Mco tower controller reports of a loss of separation due to a departing aircraft not being airborne ...

Narrative:

Aircraft X on final to runway 18L because runway 18R was closed. I told him there would be a departure prior to his arrival and to start slowing. Aircraft Y (departure) line up and wait (luaw) 18L for traffic exiting the runway. I also informed him his company was on final and to be ready for an immediate departure. Aircraft Y was cleared for takeoff in a timely manner and spacing with the arrival looked adequate. Aircraft X called his own go around prior to the runway threshold. The departure was more than 6;000 feet down the runway and rotating when the aircraft on final called the go around. The departure was airborne prior to the arrival (now a 'go around') crossing the threshold.being that it was a mandatory occurrence report (mor); somebody further up looked at it and said the departure was approximately 7;800 feet down the runway and 'not airborne' when the aircraft (that was going around) crossed the runway threshold. I did not send the aircraft on final around because; had he landed; it would be legal (more than 6;000 and airborne). I did not ask the pilot for the reason of the go around; nor did he state why. Things that would have helped; the departure would have been airborne sooner had he rolled quicker. I told him to be ready for an immediate but when I cleared him; he was slow to roll. Not like an aircraft ready for immediate departure. Likewise; I told the arrival to slow. He stated he was already slowed (180kts); but later slowed more (150kts). Neither of these matter in my opinion; because it was a legal operation. I am only filing this because somebody behind a desk; who did not witness the operation; said the departure wasn't airborne.it was a legal operation but; if I had to recommend something it would be; all the arrival aircraft be established on final; be slowed and with appropriate spacing for 'hitting gaps' prior to being switched to the tower on a five mile final.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MCO Tower Controller reports of a loss of separation due to a departing aircraft not being airborne when an arrival was over the threshold. Controller thinks the action was legal; but complained that someone who sits behind a desk made the determination that it was not legal.

Narrative: Aircraft X on final to Runway 18L because Runway 18R was closed. I told him there would be a departure prior to his arrival and to start slowing. Aircraft Y (departure) Line Up And Wait (LUAW) 18L for traffic exiting the runway. I also informed him his company was on final and to be ready for an immediate departure. Aircraft Y was cleared for takeoff in a timely manner and spacing with the arrival looked adequate. Aircraft X called his own go around prior to the runway threshold. The departure was more than 6;000 feet down the runway and rotating when the aircraft on final called the go around. The departure was airborne prior to the arrival (now a 'Go Around') crossing the threshold.Being that it was a Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR); somebody further up looked at it and said the departure was approximately 7;800 feet down the runway and 'not airborne' when the aircraft (that was going around) crossed the runway threshold. I did not send the aircraft on final around because; had he landed; it would be legal (more than 6;000 and airborne). I did not ask the pilot for the reason of the go around; nor did he state why. Things that would have helped; the departure would have been airborne sooner had he rolled quicker. I told him to be ready for an immediate but when I cleared him; he was slow to roll. Not like an aircraft ready for immediate departure. Likewise; I told the arrival to slow. He stated he was already slowed (180kts); but later slowed more (150kts). Neither of these matter in my opinion; because it was a legal operation. I am only filing this because somebody behind a desk; who did not witness the operation; said the departure wasn't airborne.It was a legal operation but; if I had to recommend something it would be; all the arrival aircraft be established on final; be slowed and with appropriate spacing for 'Hitting Gaps' prior to being switched to the tower on a five mile final.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1280503
Time
Date	201507
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	MCO.Airport
State Reference	FL
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Large Transport
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Large Transport
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Local
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 8
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Ground Conflict Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Mco tower controller reports of a loss of separation due to a departing aircraft not being airborne when an arrival was over the threshold. Controller thinks the action was legal; but complained that someone who sits behind a desk made the determination that it was not legal.