Narrative:

3RD aircraft involved-- air carrier Z/DC9; departing runway 18R; IFR. Air carrier X was landing runway 27 working with LC3 (runway 27 local). I was working LC1 (west local) with air carrier Z in position runway 18R and air carrier Y on a 3.5 mi final for runway 18R. Due to traffic that was unable to complete a crossing of runway 27; the LC3 controller sent air carrier X around. LC1 controller issued a 230 degree heading to air carrier X because of traffic landing on runway 18L and runway 18R. I had cleared air carrier Z for takeoff with a heading of 180 degrees and immediately issued air carrier Y traffic for the go around. Air carrier Y said he had the crj in sight and continued inbound for landing. I advised LC3 of my departing traffic and he instructed air carrier X to fly heading 160 degrees. When air carrier Z was airborne; I issued a turn to 210 degrees to ensure separation. Thanks to controller coordination and pilot awareness; the situation progressed without incident. Another key was air carrier X being sent around at a 1 1/2 mi final. If air carrier X had gone around on short final; a turn away from traffic landing runway 18L and runway 18R may not have been feasible; putting air carrier X in direct conflict with air carrier Y and/or air carrier Y wake turbulence. I have worked at 2 other airports with similar to mem and at both it was not permissible to land runway 18 over aircraft landing runway 27. I am not aware of anything in faao 7110.65R that allows this operation. Mem management has mentioned that we have a waiver for this operation; but will not provide the waiver when requested. Mem management has also said that flight standards has approved this operation; but will provide no specific point of contact or documentation to verify. I believe this operation puts controllers and pilots in a very precarious situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MEM LCL CTLR DESCRIBED INCIDENT DURING MULTIPLE RWY OPS AND QUESTIONS FAC'S COMPLIANCE WITH FAA ORDERS AS WELL AS EXISTENCE OF OPS WAIVER.

Narrative: 3RD ACFT INVOLVED-- ACR Z/DC9; DEPARTING RWY 18R; IFR. ACR X WAS LNDG RWY 27 WORKING WITH LC3 (RWY 27 LCL). I WAS WORKING LC1 (W LCL) WITH ACR Z IN POS RWY 18R AND ACR Y ON A 3.5 MI FINAL FOR RWY 18R. DUE TO TFC THAT WAS UNABLE TO COMPLETE A XING OF RWY 27; THE LC3 CTLR SENT ACR X AROUND. LC1 CTLR ISSUED A 230 DEG HDG TO ACR X BECAUSE OF TFC LNDG ON RWY 18L AND RWY 18R. I HAD CLRED ACR Z FOR TKOF WITH A HDG OF 180 DEGS AND IMMEDIATELY ISSUED ACR Y TFC FOR THE GAR. ACR Y SAID HE HAD THE CRJ IN SIGHT AND CONTINUED INBOUND FOR LNDG. I ADVISED LC3 OF MY DEPARTING TFC AND HE INSTRUCTED ACR X TO FLY HDG 160 DEGS. WHEN ACR Z WAS AIRBORNE; I ISSUED A TURN TO 210 DEGS TO ENSURE SEPARATION. THANKS TO CTLR COORD AND PLT AWARENESS; THE SITUATION PROGRESSED WITHOUT INCIDENT. ANOTHER KEY WAS ACR X BEING SENT AROUND AT A 1 1/2 MI FINAL. IF ACR X HAD GONE AROUND ON SHORT FINAL; A TURN AWAY FROM TFC LNDG RWY 18L AND RWY 18R MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FEASIBLE; PUTTING ACR X IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH ACR Y AND/OR ACR Y WAKE TURB. I HAVE WORKED AT 2 OTHER ARPTS WITH SIMILAR TO MEM AND AT BOTH IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO LAND RWY 18 OVER ACFT LNDG RWY 27. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING IN FAAO 7110.65R THAT ALLOWS THIS OP. MEM MGMNT HAS MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE A WAIVER FOR THIS OP; BUT WILL NOT PROVIDE THE WAIVER WHEN REQUESTED. MEM MGMNT HAS ALSO SAID THAT FLT STANDARDS HAS APPROVED THIS OP; BUT WILL PROVIDE NO SPECIFIC POINT OF CONTACT OR DOCUMENTATION TO VERIFY. I BELIEVE THIS OP PUTS CTLRS AND PLTS IN A VERY PRECARIOUS SITUATION.

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.