Narrative:

While waiting for takeoff on runway 29 at hpn, the local controller (probably developmental) was doing a poor job of sequencing VFR and visual approach IFR traffic for runway 29 (closed traffic light departures) and 34 (IFR arrs and departures). On runway 29, more than 1 aircraft elected to go around as a consequence of traffic on runway, despite local controller clearance to land. Several aircraft were sent on extended downwinds, with tower to call base, but were forgotten. All in all, the moderately busy traffic was being handled in a fashion which made the seemingly new controller forget aircraft under his control, give inappropriate landing clrncs and clearly become flustered. After some 10 mins watching this, the local controller had cleared 2 aircraft to land on runway 29 and runway 34, respectively -- small aircraft X and small aircraft Y, as I recall, had both landed as cleared. There was a substantial probability they would have collided on the ground at intersection. As it was, small aircraft Y elected to go around first, and so informed the controller who did not tell small aircraft X. Then, small aircraft X elected to go around, setting up an airborne collision course. When small aircraft X announced the go around, the tower spent the time complaining about small aircraft X's decision rather than stepping into separate the conflicting traffic (each at near 100 ft AGL). No collision occurred, but the miss was quite near. Problems rated: 1) inexperienced tower controller working a series of unwarranted mistakes. 2) inadequate supervision in tower. 3) poor judgement in chiding small aircraft X rather than separating traffic. 4) small aircraft X pilot's failure to make 90-120 degree left turn to avoid go around on runway 29.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT PERCEPTION AWAITING TKOF POSSIBLE NMAC. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT.

Narrative: WHILE WAITING FOR TKOF ON RWY 29 AT HPN, THE LCL CTLR (PROBABLY DEVELOPMENTAL) WAS DOING A POOR JOB OF SEQUENCING VFR AND VISUAL APCH IFR TFC FOR RWY 29 (CLOSED TFC LIGHT DEPS) AND 34 (IFR ARRS AND DEPS). ON RWY 29, MORE THAN 1 ACFT ELECTED TO GAR AS A CONSEQUENCE OF TFC ON RWY, DESPITE LCL CTLR CLRNC TO LAND. SEVERAL ACFT WERE SENT ON EXTENDED DOWNWINDS, WITH TWR TO CALL BASE, BUT WERE FORGOTTEN. ALL IN ALL, THE MODERATELY BUSY TFC WAS BEING HANDLED IN A FASHION WHICH MADE THE SEEMINGLY NEW CTLR FORGET ACFT UNDER HIS CTL, GIVE INAPPROPRIATE LNDG CLRNCS AND CLRLY BECOME FLUSTERED. AFTER SOME 10 MINS WATCHING THIS, THE LCL CTLR HAD CLRED 2 ACFT TO LAND ON RWY 29 AND RWY 34, RESPECTIVELY -- SMA X AND SMA Y, AS I RECALL, HAD BOTH LANDED AS CLRED. THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY THEY WOULD HAVE COLLIDED ON THE GND AT INTXN. AS IT WAS, SMA Y ELECTED TO GAR FIRST, AND SO INFORMED THE CTLR WHO DID NOT TELL SMA X. THEN, SMA X ELECTED TO GAR, SETTING UP AN AIRBORNE COLLISION COURSE. WHEN SMA X ANNOUNCED THE GAR, THE TWR SPENT THE TIME COMPLAINING ABOUT SMA X'S DECISION RATHER THAN STEPPING INTO SEPARATE THE CONFLICTING TFC (EACH AT NEAR 100 FT AGL). NO COLLISION OCCURRED, BUT THE MISS WAS QUITE NEAR. PROBLEMS RATED: 1) INEXPERIENCED TWR CTLR WORKING A SERIES OF UNWARRANTED MISTAKES. 2) INADEQUATE SUPERVISION IN TWR. 3) POOR JUDGEMENT IN CHIDING SMA X RATHER THAN SEPARATING TFC. 4) SMA X PLT'S FAILURE TO MAKE 90-120 DEG L TURN TO AVOID GAR ON RWY 29.

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.