Narrative:

I was working tower radar and controller in charge. A supervisor was giving a skills check on local 1; and a controller was providing training on local 2. Traffic was fairly busy on the local 1 side; and radar was having to coordinate with local 1 for sequencing. At some point I remember hearing local 2 coordinate '2 out landing 4 request unrestricted'; and the local 1 controller approved 'runway 4 unrestricted approved'. I absolutely despise this procedure personally; however many in our facility believe this is the correct way to work the full stops to runway 4. I was busy working aircraft; and a little later I heard local 2 ask to land runway 4 unrestricted and local 1 approve it again. Local 2 once again coordinated 2 out landing 4 request unrestricted; this time local 1 said 'hold short traffic is a commander on final runway 32R'. At about this time I heard the local 1 trainee; ask local 2 if aircraft X was going to make it; turning off the runway.as I turned around aircraft Y was on short final. As I was thinking about the operation; I questioned in my mind if aircraft X was one of the aircraft who was not restricted to hold short of 32R. As such; by approving local 2 to land unrestricted; local 1 had in fact given control of the midfield intersection to local 2; and thus he did not have authorization to use the midfield portion of runway 32R. At no point was there any coordination from local 2 to give back the midfield portion of local 1 for runway 14L/32R operations. I also believe that this happened 1-3 times before this operation; and it is my belief that at no time should 2 different controllers own the same portion of 2 runways. I discussed this with my air traffic manager after I got off position; and told her I did not know if I should file report on this. I believe she was going to discuss this with one of the evaluators; who just finished a facility evaluation within the last month. I told her I would file the [report].this has been a procedure which I have questioned for quite some time; and even believe we have had briefings and a ruling from above. When we have the local control positions combined one controller can determine when they need to land runway 4 and hold short of 32R; or just land runway 4 without a restriction. However when local controls become split; local 1 owns the midfield until such time as local 1 approves local 2 to land unrestricted. I have always been taught; and trained that you always land runway 4 and hold short of 32R; unless; it is a student pilot who cannot accept land and hold short (lahso); specifically requests the whole runway; or winds; or contamination void the restriction.some say that because the 7110.65 states you should restrict the lesser aircraft; that with no traffic arriving 14L/32R; then you should not restrict the aircraft landing 4. It is my contention that you are not restricting the 4 arrival for traffic; but for airspace; as local 1 owns the east side of the airport; which is described in our SOP; and always has control of the midfield intersection. I believe that the trainees are being taught by some instructors that you should always request unrestricted if there is no traffic. The available landing distance for a runway 4 arrival is 5000 feet with the hold short of 32R restriction.I have never seen an aircraft given the restriction come close to not being able to hold short; and the trainers who are requesting unrestricted have stated that they do not believe the aircraft will ever cross 14L/32R; but they do not like having to restrict them; or have to listen for a read back of the hold short instruction. However as I believe happened today; 2 controllers were using the same portion of 2 overlapping runways at the same time; with no restrictions; no traffic exchanged; and no feeling of doing anything unsafe or wrong. I believe that this procedure should be mandated by the facility to land 4 and hold short of 32R unless the pilot requests thefull runway; or winds or contamination preclude landing to hold short. There also needs to be a facility procedure that when local 1 gives local 2 control of the midfield intersection; that local 1 cannot use 14L/32R until such time as local 2 gives local 1 control of the midfield intersection back. Until such time as this occurs; I believe that the operation I witnessed today will continue to happen; and trainees will continue to feel it is ok; and safe; when in fact I believe it is a safety issue.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MWH Tower Controller in Charge reported he observed the Local Controllers using an unsafe procedure for arriving aircraft to intersecting runways.

Narrative: I was working Tower Radar and Controller in Charge. A Supervisor was giving a Skills Check on Local 1; and a controller was providing training on Local 2. Traffic was fairly busy on the Local 1 side; and Radar was having to coordinate with Local 1 for sequencing. At some point I remember hearing Local 2 coordinate '2 out Landing 4 request Unrestricted'; and the Local 1 Controller approved 'Runway 4 Unrestricted Approved'. I absolutely despise this procedure personally; however many in our facility believe this is the correct way to work the full stops to runway 4. I was busy working aircraft; and a little later I heard Local 2 ask to land runway 4 unrestricted and Local 1 approve it again. Local 2 once again coordinated 2 out landing 4 Request Unrestricted; this time Local 1 said 'Hold Short traffic is a Commander on Final runway 32R'. At about this time I heard the local 1 trainee; ask local 2 if Aircraft X was going to make it; turning off the runway.As I turned around Aircraft Y was on short final. As I was thinking about the operation; I questioned in my mind if Aircraft X was one of the aircraft who was not restricted to hold short of 32R. As such; by approving Local 2 to land unrestricted; Local 1 had in fact given control of the midfield intersection to Local 2; and thus he did not have authorization to use the midfield portion of Runway 32R. At no point was there any coordination from Local 2 to give back the midfield portion of Local 1 for Runway 14L/32R operations. I also believe that this happened 1-3 times before this operation; and it is my belief that at no time should 2 different controllers own the same portion of 2 runways. I discussed this with my Air Traffic Manager after I got off position; and told her I did not know if I should file Report on this. I believe she was going to discuss this with one of the evaluators; who just finished a facility evaluation within the last month. I told her I would file the [report].This has been a procedure which I have questioned for quite some time; and even believe we have had briefings and a ruling from above. When we have the local control positions combined one controller can determine when they need to land runway 4 and hold short of 32R; or just land Runway 4 without a restriction. However when Local Controls become split; Local 1 owns the midfield until such time as Local 1 approves Local 2 to land unrestricted. I have always been taught; and trained that you always land runway 4 and hold short of 32R; unless; it is a student pilot who cannot accept Land and Hold Short (LAHSO); specifically requests the whole runway; or winds; or contamination void the restriction.Some say that because the 7110.65 states you should restrict the lesser aircraft; that with no traffic arriving 14L/32R; then you should not restrict the aircraft landing 4. It is my contention that you are not restricting the 4 arrival for traffic; but for airspace; as Local 1 owns the East side of the airport; which is described in our SOP; and always has control of the midfield intersection. I believe that the trainees are being taught by some Instructors that you should always request unrestricted if there is no traffic. The available landing distance for a runway 4 arrival is 5000 feet with the hold short of 32R restriction.I have never seen an aircraft given the restriction come close to not being able to hold short; and the trainers who are requesting unrestricted have stated that they do not believe the aircraft will ever cross 14L/32R; but they do not like having to restrict them; or have to listen for a read back of the hold short instruction. However as I believe happened today; 2 controllers were using the same portion of 2 overlapping runways at the same time; with no restrictions; no traffic exchanged; and no feeling of doing anything unsafe or wrong. I believe that this procedure should be mandated by the facility to Land 4 and Hold short of 32R unless the pilot requests thefull runway; or winds or contamination preclude landing to hold short. There also needs to be a facility procedure that when Local 1 gives Local 2 control of the midfield intersection; that local 1 cannot use 14L/32R until such time as Local 2 gives Local 1 control of the Midfield intersection back. Until such time as this occurs; I believe that the operation I witnessed today will continue to happen; and trainees will continue to feel it is ok; and safe; when in fact I believe it is a Safety Issue.

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.