Narrative:

On the evening of apr/mon/04, I flew from lga to fll. We were delayed due to a late arriving aircraft (ground delay program due to wind at lga, runway 31 single runway operation). We pushed at xa:56Z/xa:56 EDT, and took off at xb:26Z/xb:26 EDT. During the 20-25 mins we spent at the end of runway 31, waiting to takeoff, we observed a single lga tower controller handling arriving and departing traffic as well as taxiing aircraft. In that time, numerous aircraft were closely spaced on the expressway visual approach, and several aircraft required direction while taxiing (alley blocked, needed to cross runway 4/22, etc). It was obvious that the tower controller was over-tasked. On one occasion, the tower controller cleared us into position with a landing aircraft on what appeared to us to be short final. I refused that clearance. The landing aircraft finally received landing clearance on very short final, after a call to tower. In several other cases, aircraft on the approach had to make multiple calls to tower because the lone controller had been handling ground movement problems. I am not saying that any far's were violated, but the first officer and I agreed that this situation was 'an accident waiting to happen.' although I do not know why only 1 tower controller was working, I believe that lga tower should be properly staffed to handle both air and ground traffic during periods such as this. If inbound traffic is delayed, tower controllers should stay later than usual to handle it. Again, we did not observe any improper procedures or 'near misses,' but the potential was definitely there.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD80 CAPT EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING TWR CTLR WORKLOAD AND PERFORMANCE AT LGA.

Narrative: ON THE EVENING OF APR/MON/04, I FLEW FROM LGA TO FLL. WE WERE DELAYED DUE TO A LATE ARRIVING ACFT (GND DELAY PROGRAM DUE TO WIND AT LGA, RWY 31 SINGLE RWY OP). WE PUSHED AT XA:56Z/XA:56 EDT, AND TOOK OFF AT XB:26Z/XB:26 EDT. DURING THE 20-25 MINS WE SPENT AT THE END OF RWY 31, WAITING TO TKOF, WE OBSERVED A SINGLE LGA TWR CTLR HANDLING ARRIVING AND DEPARTING TFC AS WELL AS TAXIING ACFT. IN THAT TIME, NUMEROUS ACFT WERE CLOSELY SPACED ON THE EXPRESSWAY VISUAL APCH, AND SEVERAL ACFT REQUIRED DIRECTION WHILE TAXIING (ALLEY BLOCKED, NEEDED TO CROSS RWY 4/22, ETC). IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE TWR CTLR WAS OVER-TASKED. ON ONE OCCASION, THE TWR CTLR CLRED US INTO POS WITH A LNDG ACFT ON WHAT APPEARED TO US TO BE SHORT FINAL. I REFUSED THAT CLRNC. THE LNDG ACFT FINALLY RECEIVED LNDG CLRNC ON VERY SHORT FINAL, AFTER A CALL TO TWR. IN SEVERAL OTHER CASES, ACFT ON THE APCH HAD TO MAKE MULTIPLE CALLS TO TWR BECAUSE THE LONE CTLR HAD BEEN HANDLING GND MOVEMENT PROBS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT ANY FAR'S WERE VIOLATED, BUT THE FO AND I AGREED THAT THIS SIT WAS 'AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN.' ALTHOUGH I DO NOT KNOW WHY ONLY 1 TWR CTLR WAS WORKING, I BELIEVE THAT LGA TWR SHOULD BE PROPERLY STAFFED TO HANDLE BOTH AIR AND GND TFC DURING PERIODS SUCH AS THIS. IF INBOUND TFC IS DELAYED, TWR CTLRS SHOULD STAY LATER THAN USUAL TO HANDLE IT. AGAIN, WE DID NOT OBSERVE ANY IMPROPER PROCS OR 'NEAR MISSES,' BUT THE POTENTIAL WAS DEFINITELY THERE.

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.