Narrative:

I am becoming increasingly concerned about a major safety infringement by the ord tower. It seems the tower in an effort to increase capacity has started to use hold short operations as a standard procedure (ie, 27R/22R). If the ATIS broadcasts this procedure and you do not reject it on your initial contact with approach control your compliance is considered mandatory. This is an unsafe procedure at its best since it eliminates 25 percent of available runway and places all responsibility on the pilot. Arriving from tpa, air carrier X, sept/90. ATIS information for runways 22R and 14R no hold short operations. Checked in with approach control and was assigned runway 27R (no hold short instructions). When on tower frequency aircraft preceeding me was cleared to land on runway 27R to hold short of runway 22R. His response was 'we'll try', the tower commented that it was mandatory. I called in over the OM and was cleared to land on runway 27R hold short of runway 22R. My response was to request full length available. Tower rescinded landing clearance and asked aircraft landing on runway 22R to hold short of runway 27R, he confirmed he would. We were then cleared to land with no restrictions, please call the tower. I called the tower chief and we discussed this. His position was that if we were unwilling to hold short, advise approach on initial contact and they would accommodate with either another runway or full length. Now, arriving 3 days later, hold short runway 27R/22R in progress. Advised approach control on initial contact full length would be required. Approach control response 'if unable to hold short expect a go around.' I stated we understood. Approach control then vectored us for a very close high turn in (ie, slam dunk) for runway 27R, cleared for approach full length available. This attempt at intimidation to accept hold short operations is going a little too far in the infringement of safety and a violation of the towers stated operating policy. I believe we as a facility user had better stop this procedure before it becomes policy or worse yet a tragedy occurs which will be conveniently explained as pilot error. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. This analyst explained to the reporter that the hold short operation was not new. The operation was put into effect in may/89 for group four (medium large transport) type aircraft when the runway 27R approach end was extended by 500'. Ord had a waiver to run the operation on runway 27R as there is only 5900' to the intersection of the runways. 6000' is required by the FAA handbook 7210.31. Reporter stated the operation would be more acceptable to him if approach controller staggered the aircraft so they don't both arrive at the intersection at the same time in case the aircraft holding short failed to comply. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. This analyst discussed the runways 27R/22R with ord tower procedures officer. The operation had become legal for ord in may/89 when they received a waiver on runway intersection distances. 6000' are required but runway 27R only had 5900'. The officer was informed a pilot had said the information was on the ATIS about runway 22R but not for runway 27R. Analyst asked why both runways (runway 22R and runway 27R hold short operations in effect) could not be put on ATIS at the same time? Procedures officer said they would look into that suggestion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SIMULTANEOUS OPERATIONS ON INTERSECTING RWYS AT ORD ARPT. UNSAFE PROC.

Narrative: I AM BECOMING INCREASINGLY CONCERNED ABOUT A MAJOR SAFETY INFRINGEMENT BY THE ORD TWR. IT SEEMS THE TWR IN AN EFFORT TO INCREASE CAPACITY HAS STARTED TO USE HOLD SHORT OPS AS A STANDARD PROC (IE, 27R/22R). IF THE ATIS BROADCASTS THIS PROC AND YOU DO NOT REJECT IT ON YOUR INITIAL CONTACT WITH APCH CTL YOUR COMPLIANCE IS CONSIDERED MANDATORY. THIS IS AN UNSAFE PROC AT ITS BEST SINCE IT ELIMINATES 25 PERCENT OF AVAILABLE RWY AND PLACES ALL RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PLT. ARRIVING FROM TPA, ACR X, SEPT/90. ATIS INFO FOR RWYS 22R AND 14R NO HOLD SHORT OPS. CHKED IN WITH APCH CTL AND WAS ASSIGNED RWY 27R (NO HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS). WHEN ON TWR FREQ ACFT PRECEEDING ME WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 27R TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 22R. HIS RESPONSE WAS 'WE'LL TRY', THE TWR COMMENTED THAT IT WAS MANDATORY. I CALLED IN OVER THE OM AND WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 27R HOLD SHORT OF RWY 22R. MY RESPONSE WAS TO REQUEST FULL LENGTH AVAILABLE. TWR RESCINDED LNDG CLRNC AND ASKED ACFT LNDG ON RWY 22R TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 27R, HE CONFIRMED HE WOULD. WE WERE THEN CLRED TO LAND WITH NO RESTRICTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE TWR. I CALLED THE TWR CHIEF AND WE DISCUSSED THIS. HIS POS WAS THAT IF WE WERE UNWILLING TO HOLD SHORT, ADVISE APCH ON INITIAL CONTACT AND THEY WOULD ACCOMMODATE WITH EITHER ANOTHER RWY OR FULL LENGTH. NOW, ARRIVING 3 DAYS LATER, HOLD SHORT RWY 27R/22R IN PROGRESS. ADVISED APCH CTL ON INITIAL CONTACT FULL LENGTH WOULD BE REQUIRED. APCH CTL RESPONSE 'IF UNABLE TO HOLD SHORT EXPECT A GO AROUND.' I STATED WE UNDERSTOOD. APCH CTL THEN VECTORED US FOR A VERY CLOSE HIGH TURN IN (IE, SLAM DUNK) FOR RWY 27R, CLRED FOR APCH FULL LENGTH AVAILABLE. THIS ATTEMPT AT INTIMIDATION TO ACCEPT HOLD SHORT OPS IS GOING A LITTLE TOO FAR IN THE INFRINGEMENT OF SAFETY AND A VIOLATION OF THE TWRS STATED OPERATING POLICY. I BELIEVE WE AS A FACILITY USER HAD BETTER STOP THIS PROC BEFORE IT BECOMES POLICY OR WORSE YET A TRAGEDY OCCURS WHICH WILL BE CONVENIENTLY EXPLAINED AS PLT ERROR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. THIS ANALYST EXPLAINED TO THE RPTR THAT THE HOLD SHORT OPERATION WAS NOT NEW. THE OPERATION WAS PUT INTO EFFECT IN MAY/89 FOR GROUP FOUR (MLG) TYPE ACFT WHEN THE RWY 27R APCH END WAS EXTENDED BY 500'. ORD HAD A WAIVER TO RUN THE OPERATION ON RWY 27R AS THERE IS ONLY 5900' TO THE INTXN OF THE RWYS. 6000' IS REQUIRED BY THE FAA HANDBOOK 7210.31. RPTR STATED THE OPERATION WOULD BE MORE ACCEPTABLE TO HIM IF APCH CTLR STAGGERED THE ACFT SO THEY DON'T BOTH ARRIVE AT THE INTXN AT THE SAME TIME IN CASE THE ACFT HOLDING SHORT FAILED TO COMPLY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. THIS ANALYST DISCUSSED THE RWYS 27R/22R WITH ORD TWR PROCS OFFICER. THE OPERATION HAD BECOME LEGAL FOR ORD IN MAY/89 WHEN THEY RECEIVED A WAIVER ON RWY INTXN DISTANCES. 6000' ARE REQUIRED BUT RWY 27R ONLY HAD 5900'. THE OFFICER WAS INFORMED A PLT HAD SAID THE INFO WAS ON THE ATIS ABOUT RWY 22R BUT NOT FOR RWY 27R. ANALYST ASKED WHY BOTH RWYS (RWY 22R AND RWY 27R HOLD SHORT OPS IN EFFECT) COULD NOT BE PUT ON ATIS AT THE SAME TIME? PROCS OFFICER SAID THEY WOULD LOOK INTO THAT SUGGESTION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.