Narrative:

Not really an 'incident' as such, but it did get our attention big time. They were using west runways and on short final to runway 27R they had a commuter cross our approach path landing on the cross, north runway. (He crossed our flight path from left to right.) we were not told about the other traffic until I asked. Took most of our attention away from the flying duties of landing. For quite awhile, there appeared to be a 'constant bearing' between him and us which made us a bit apprehensive. The commuter actually crossed our path when we were approximately 300 ft altitude. I considered it very unusual, if not dangerous (again, it was so unusual, that it took a lot of attention away from the approach and landing on our aircraft). I have never seen anything like it in my career. I called the tower and got a kind of 'snippy' answer that basically said that they were authority/authorized to do it, it was legal, and it was a 'clean' maneuver. I asked to talk to the supervisor and basically got the same answer, though not as 'snippy.' supervisor said ZZZ is first airport authority/authorized to use this new procedure and it is expected to be used at other airports in the future. If this is so, why haven't we (the average line pilot) heard of it? A few questions come to mind. What is the criteria for using it? How can I be sure that the separation is adequate? What do we do if we have to do a go around? Are there well thought out provisions if both of us have to do a go around? What are the WX minimums? Was pilot's association involved in the construction and authority/authorized of this procedure? Can we as pilots refuse it (like lahso)? If so, when do they tell us the procedure is in effect (ATIS, approach control, short final, never)? Are they still required to point out the traffic and let us know what is going on? What is the procedure called? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the captain called the tower to discuss the handling of his flight. He considered the light commuter much too close. It did not give his aircraft any way to go around. The reporter said the distraction caused the crew to get a GPWS warning 'low GS.' he was not happy with the response to his complaint. He considers this a dangerous controller activity to clear aircraft to land on runways 27 in conflict with aircraft landing on runway 35.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-300 CREW AND A LIGHT COMMUTER ACFT HAD QUESTIONABLE SEPARATION WHILE ON APCHS TO RWYS 27R AND 35 AT PHL. THE ATCT LCL CTLR DID NOT ADVISE THE CREW THAT AN ACFT, LNDG ON RWY 35 WOULD PASS IN FRONT OF THEM.

Narrative: NOT REALLY AN 'INCIDENT' AS SUCH, BUT IT DID GET OUR ATTN BIG TIME. THEY WERE USING W RWYS AND ON SHORT FINAL TO RWY 27R THEY HAD A COMMUTER CROSS OUR APCH PATH LNDG ON THE CROSS, N RWY. (HE CROSSED OUR FLT PATH FROM L TO R.) WE WERE NOT TOLD ABOUT THE OTHER TFC UNTIL I ASKED. TOOK MOST OF OUR ATTN AWAY FROM THE FLYING DUTIES OF LNDG. FOR QUITE AWHILE, THERE APPEARED TO BE A 'CONSTANT BEARING' BTWN HIM AND US WHICH MADE US A BIT APPREHENSIVE. THE COMMUTER ACTUALLY CROSSED OUR PATH WHEN WE WERE APPROX 300 FT ALT. I CONSIDERED IT VERY UNUSUAL, IF NOT DANGEROUS (AGAIN, IT WAS SO UNUSUAL, THAT IT TOOK A LOT OF ATTN AWAY FROM THE APCH AND LNDG ON OUR ACFT). I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT IN MY CAREER. I CALLED THE TWR AND GOT A KIND OF 'SNIPPY' ANSWER THAT BASICALLY SAID THAT THEY WERE AUTH TO DO IT, IT WAS LEGAL, AND IT WAS A 'CLEAN' MANEUVER. I ASKED TO TALK TO THE SUPVR AND BASICALLY GOT THE SAME ANSWER, THOUGH NOT AS 'SNIPPY.' SUPVR SAID ZZZ IS FIRST ARPT AUTH TO USE THIS NEW PROC AND IT IS EXPECTED TO BE USED AT OTHER ARPTS IN THE FUTURE. IF THIS IS SO, WHY HAVEN'T WE (THE AVERAGE LINE PLT) HEARD OF IT? A FEW QUESTIONS COME TO MIND. WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR USING IT? HOW CAN I BE SURE THAT THE SEPARATION IS ADEQUATE? WHAT DO WE DO IF WE HAVE TO DO A GAR? ARE THERE WELL THOUGHT OUT PROVISIONS IF BOTH OF US HAVE TO DO A GAR? WHAT ARE THE WX MINIMUMS? WAS PLT'S ASSOCIATION INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND AUTH OF THIS PROC? CAN WE AS PLTS REFUSE IT (LIKE LAHSO)? IF SO, WHEN DO THEY TELL US THE PROC IS IN EFFECT (ATIS, APCH CTL, SHORT FINAL, NEVER)? ARE THEY STILL REQUIRED TO POINT OUT THE TFC AND LET US KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON? WHAT IS THE PROC CALLED? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE CAPT CALLED THE TWR TO DISCUSS THE HANDLING OF HIS FLT. HE CONSIDERED THE LIGHT COMMUTER MUCH TOO CLOSE. IT DID NOT GIVE HIS ACFT ANY WAY TO GO AROUND. THE RPTR SAID THE DISTR CAUSED THE CREW TO GET A GPWS WARNING 'LOW GS.' HE WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE RESPONSE TO HIS COMPLAINT. HE CONSIDERS THIS A DANGEROUS CTLR ACTIVITY TO CLR ACFT TO LAND ON RWYS 27 IN CONFLICT WITH ACFT LNDG ON RWY 35.

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.