Narrative:

Ord controllers are using a procedure that may be contrary to FAA procedures as outlined in the 7110.65G PAR 3-104 C3-107 (B). There are many configns where O'hare controllers interpret these rules very liberally in an effort to move traffic quickly. Specifically, they clear aircraft for takeoff on intersecting runways or to cross the arrival runway before they get acknowledgement from the arrival aircraft that he can hold short of the intersection. Controllers are using their judgement and experience to move traffic in what is generally a safe, but not necessarily a legal operation. There are rare incidents where this doesn't work. The assumption is always made that nothing unusual will occur with the arrival aircraft, but we know this is not a perfect world. Unfortunately, in all these situations the controller may be held accountable, just as (south)he is held accountable for traffic backups and delays that lead to the bending of the rules. A priority between these needs should be established and some of these pressures and responsibilities need to be shoved off the controllers shoulders to traffic management, pilots, airlines... Procedures need to be continued to be worked on that can expedite traffic without jeopardizing the controllers career. Can we require aircraft to land on a runway to hold short of a taxiway intersection? Can we ask pilots to hold short of a taxiway intersection? Can we ask pilots to advise us in IFR conditions if they can hold short of a runway intersection after they advise the runway environment in sight?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MULTIPLE RWY OP INTERSECTING PARALLEL RWYS. ANTICIPATORY ATC CLRNC FOR STANDARD SEPARATION.

Narrative: ORD CTLRS ARE USING A PROC THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO FAA PROCS AS OUTLINED IN THE 7110.65G PAR 3-104 C3-107 (B). THERE ARE MANY CONFIGNS WHERE O'HARE CTLRS INTERPRET THESE RULES VERY LIBERALLY IN AN EFFORT TO MOVE TFC QUICKLY. SPECIFICALLY, THEY CLR ACFT FOR TKOF ON INTERSECTING RWYS OR TO CROSS THE ARR RWY BEFORE THEY GET ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE ARR ACFT THAT HE CAN HOLD SHORT OF THE INTXN. CTLRS ARE USING THEIR JUDGEMENT AND EXPERIENCE TO MOVE TFC IN WHAT IS GENERALLY A SAFE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY A LEGAL OP. THERE ARE RARE INCIDENTS WHERE THIS DOESN'T WORK. THE ASSUMPTION IS ALWAYS MADE THAT NOTHING UNUSUAL WILL OCCUR WITH THE ARR ACFT, BUT WE KNOW THIS IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD. UNFORTUNATELY, IN ALL THESE SITUATIONS THE CTLR MAY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, JUST AS (S)HE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR TFC BACKUPS AND DELAYS THAT LEAD TO THE BENDING OF THE RULES. A PRIORITY BTWN THESE NEEDS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AND SOME OF THESE PRESSURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES NEED TO BE SHOVED OFF THE CTLRS SHOULDERS TO TFC MGMNT, PLTS, AIRLINES... PROCS NEED TO BE CONTINUED TO BE WORKED ON THAT CAN EXPEDITE TFC WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING THE CTLRS CAREER. CAN WE REQUIRE ACFT TO LAND ON A RWY TO HOLD SHORT OF A TAXIWAY INTXN? CAN WE ASK PLTS TO HOLD SHORT OF A TAXIWAY INTXN? CAN WE ASK PLTS TO ADVISE US IN IFR CONDITIONS IF THEY CAN HOLD SHORT OF A RWY INTXN AFTER THEY ADVISE THE RWY ENVIRONMENT IN SIGHT?

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.