Narrative:

Msp was using runway 35 for landing; and taking off runway 30 left and right. WX was VMC. Winds were reported at 320 degrees at 19 KTS with gusts to 26. Wind variable 270 degrees to 340 degrees. We were cleared for the visual approach to runway 35. I had briefed the 'converging ILS runway 35' due to knowing if we needed to go around; we would need to turn immediately due to traffic conflicts with planes on runway 30L. On approach; we were in some light turbulence; and experiencing about 5 to 8 KTS loss/gain on speed due to gusts. We were also experiencing mechanical turbulence from the mall of america; which is fairly close to the flight path for final approach on runway 35. On about a mile final; tower cleared a citation jet for takeoff on runway 30L. We could not see them due to the terminal and the angle of where the other plane was. As we touched down and rolling out; the captain said he saw the citation cross in front of us. If we had to have executed a go around due to shear or any other reason; we would have had a conflict with the departing citation. There was probably less than 4000 ft distance between the two of us; mostly due to our plane slowing/braking. I received a phone call shortly after from another pilot who was watching the airport from an office building near the airport; and he stated that spacing was critical between our plane and the citation. He stated he saw no less than 5 other occurrences in the previous half hour. Pilots are under the understanding that FAA order 7110.65R explains that this runway configuration should be run dependent/converging; meaning that the projected flight paths should be clear in case of a go around. For some reason; msp does not follow this order. It is common for them to use this configuration even when there is low level windshear advisories in the area. Any plane recovering from shear on runway 35 would fly right through the flight paths of both runways 30L and 30R.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that the incident was observed by other pilots and that the spacing was unacceptable for the converging runways. Reporter indicated that he is the aviation safety chairman for his airline and that numerous similar incidents have occurred and that the FAA/tower is not responsive to the requests to operate under FAA order 7110.65R; chap 3; paragraph 3-10-4. He stated that numerous letters have been sent to the FAA via pilot group safety committee with regard to the multiple runway operations at msp. He felt that the operation is degraded by the close proximity and that the tower is expediting arrival/departure to the extent that safety is jeopardized.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG FLT CREW EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING CONVERGING RWY OPS WITH POTENTIAL CONFLICT DURING GO AROUND PROCS.

Narrative: MSP WAS USING RWY 35 FOR LNDG; AND TAKING OFF RWY 30 L AND R. WX WAS VMC. WINDS WERE RPTED AT 320 DEGS AT 19 KTS WITH GUSTS TO 26. WIND VARIABLE 270 DEGS TO 340 DEGS. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 35. I HAD BRIEFED THE 'CONVERGING ILS RWY 35' DUE TO KNOWING IF WE NEEDED TO GO AROUND; WE WOULD NEED TO TURN IMMEDIATELY DUE TO TFC CONFLICTS WITH PLANES ON RWY 30L. ON APCH; WE WERE IN SOME LIGHT TURB; AND EXPERIENCING ABOUT 5 TO 8 KTS LOSS/GAIN ON SPD DUE TO GUSTS. WE WERE ALSO EXPERIENCING MECHANICAL TURB FROM THE MALL OF AMERICA; WHICH IS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE FLT PATH FOR FINAL APCH ON RWY 35. ON ABOUT A MILE FINAL; TWR CLRED A CITATION JET FOR TKOF ON RWY 30L. WE COULD NOT SEE THEM DUE TO THE TERMINAL AND THE ANGLE OF WHERE THE OTHER PLANE WAS. AS WE TOUCHED DOWN AND ROLLING OUT; THE CAPT SAID HE SAW THE CITATION CROSS IN FRONT OF US. IF WE HAD TO HAVE EXECUTED A GO AROUND DUE TO SHEAR OR ANY OTHER REASON; WE WOULD HAVE HAD A CONFLICT WITH THE DEPARTING CITATION. THERE WAS PROBABLY LESS THAN 4000 FT DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO OF US; MOSTLY DUE TO OUR PLANE SLOWING/BRAKING. I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL SHORTLY AFTER FROM ANOTHER PLT WHO WAS WATCHING THE ARPT FROM AN OFFICE BUILDING NEAR THE ARPT; AND HE STATED THAT SPACING WAS CRITICAL BETWEEN OUR PLANE AND THE CITATION. HE STATED HE SAW NO LESS THAN 5 OTHER OCCURRENCES IN THE PREVIOUS HALF HOUR. PLTS ARE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT FAA ORDER 7110.65R EXPLAINS THAT THIS RWY CONFIGURATION SHOULD BE RUN DEPENDENT/CONVERGING; MEANING THAT THE PROJECTED FLT PATHS SHOULD BE CLEAR IN CASE OF A GO AROUND. FOR SOME REASON; MSP DOES NOT FOLLOW THIS ORDER. IT IS COMMON FOR THEM TO USE THIS CONFIGURATION EVEN WHEN THERE IS LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ADVISORIES IN THE AREA. ANY PLANE RECOVERING FROM SHEAR ON RWY 35 WOULD FLY RIGHT THROUGH THE FLT PATHS OF BOTH RWYS 30L AND 30R.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE INCIDENT WAS OBSERVED BY OTHER PLTS AND THAT THE SPACING WAS UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE CONVERGING RWYS. RPTR INDICATED THAT HE IS THE AVIATION SAFETY CHAIRMAN FOR HIS AIRLINE AND THAT NUMEROUS SIMILAR INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED AND THAT THE FAA/TWR IS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUESTS TO OPERATE UNDER FAA ORDER 7110.65R; CHAP 3; PARAGRAPH 3-10-4. HE STATED THAT NUMEROUS LETTERS HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE FAA VIA PLT GROUP SAFETY COMMITTEE WITH REGARD TO THE MULTIPLE RWY OPERATIONS AT MSP. HE FELT THAT THE OPERATION IS DEGRADED BY THE CLOSE PROXIMITY AND THAT THE TWR IS EXPEDITING ARR/DEP TO THE EXTENT THAT SAFETY IS JEOPARDIZED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.