Narrative:

Aircraft X landing RY11 short final; C172 holding on RY11 short of RY5 waiting for traffic on crossing runway RY05 to complete departure phase of touch and go. C172 exited RY11 on to RY05 as aircraft X crossed landing threshold RY11. Local controller not experienced working crossing runways traffic; failed to properly anticipate speed of jet aircraft and situational requirements.traffic practicing crosswind landings/departures RY05. While the traffic was lite and this activity should not have been a problem the local controller was engaged in conversation with a developmental controller who was observing the operation. The local controllers working speed did not match the demands of this situation. The local controller had wanted the C172 to land and roll past the crossing runway while the pilot had wanted to exit on the cross runway for a closer taxi to parking. The local controller choose to hold the C172 on RY11 short of RY5 and wait for the completion of the touch and go on RY5 then exiting the C172.it could/would have been more productive to exit the C172 on to RY5 and then the taxiway and send the RY5 traffic around. The risk of the go around for RY5 traffic was far less than the potential RY11 high energy landing aircraft X and the stationary C172 powering up to exit onto RY5.on observation and query of the local controller there was little understanding of the full gravity of the situation. Disturbingly the local controller was still engaged in conversation with the developmental and placing blame on the pilots.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BED Tower Front Line Manager reported of a Local Controller who; while distracted by a Developmental; led to a runway separation event. FLM reported Controller's speed of actions was not up to the tempo of traffic. FLM reported Controller should have done something different to avoid the loss of separation.

Narrative: Aircraft X landing RY11 short final; C172 holding on RY11 short of RY5 waiting for traffic on crossing runway RY05 to complete departure phase of touch and go. C172 exited RY11 on to RY05 as Aircraft X crossed landing threshold RY11. Local controller not experienced working crossing runways traffic; failed to properly anticipate speed of jet aircraft and situational requirements.Traffic practicing crosswind landings/departures RY05. While the traffic was lite and this activity should not have been a problem the local controller was engaged in conversation with a developmental controller who was observing the operation. The local controllers working speed did not match the demands of this situation. The local controller had wanted the C172 to land and roll past the crossing runway while the pilot had wanted to exit on the cross runway for a closer taxi to parking. the local controller choose to hold the C172 on RY11 short of RY5 and wait for the completion of the touch and go on RY5 then exiting the C172.It could/would have been more productive to exit the C172 on to RY5 and then the taxiway and send the RY5 traffic around. The risk of the go around for RY5 traffic was far less than the potential RY11 high energy landing Aircraft X and the stationary C172 powering up to exit onto RY5.On observation and query of the local controller there was little understanding of the full gravity of the situation. Disturbingly the local controller was still engaged in conversation with the developmental and placing blame on the pilots.

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.