Narrative:

During the morning arrival push; mem was landing runways 18R/27L and using converging runway display aid. I was working the coordinator position attempting to balance the parallel runway traffic. The parallel finals were approximately 25 mi with excess traffic going to runway 27. The supervisor asked me if I had considered taking traffic from the southwest across the departure course for left traffic to runway 27. I responded that I hadn't because of departure and overflt traffic. The supervisor recommended that I relieve the pressure to runway 18R by doing the above. I asked which aircraft he had in mind; as I was not going to do this unless he insisted I do this. The supervisor picked aircraft X; a CRJ2. The first thing I needed to do was descend aircraft X from 8000 ft to 6000 ft; but I had to miss 2 departure aircraft climbing to 7000 ft. Once aircraft X was clear of this traffic; I had to get the plane down quickly for overflt traffic that was east to west at 8000 ft. Once aircraft X was clear of the overflt and departures off the airport; I needed to get the aircraft down to 4000 ft. I instructed the west arrival controller to descend aircraft X to 4000 ft heading 090 degrees. This would provide divergence with an eastbound departure. The west arrival controller saw this aircraft and refused to descend the aircraft X while I was coordinating with the departure controller. After I was finished; I went back to the west arrival controller and reissued my instructions with an explanation of separation. The difficulty in getting aircraft X to runway 27 was not worth the trouble; and I; as coordinator; knew this. The supervisor had just been monitoring the parallel final controllers; so he was not clear as to the whole picture.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MEM RADAR COORD EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING SUPVR DECISION TO USE UNFAMILIAR PROC FOR ARR TFC; CAUSING CONFUSION AND EXTRA WORKLOAD.

Narrative: DURING THE MORNING ARR PUSH; MEM WAS LNDG RWYS 18R/27L AND USING CONVERGING RWY DISPLAY AID. I WAS WORKING THE COORDINATOR POS ATTEMPTING TO BALANCE THE PARALLEL RWY TFC. THE PARALLEL FINALS WERE APPROX 25 MI WITH EXCESS TFC GOING TO RWY 27. THE SUPVR ASKED ME IF I HAD CONSIDERED TAKING TFC FROM THE SW ACROSS THE DEP COURSE FOR L TFC TO RWY 27. I RESPONDED THAT I HADN'T BECAUSE OF DEP AND OVERFLT TFC. THE SUPVR RECOMMENDED THAT I RELIEVE THE PRESSURE TO RWY 18R BY DOING THE ABOVE. I ASKED WHICH ACFT HE HAD IN MIND; AS I WAS NOT GOING TO DO THIS UNLESS HE INSISTED I DO THIS. THE SUPVR PICKED ACFT X; A CRJ2. THE FIRST THING I NEEDED TO DO WAS DSND ACFT X FROM 8000 FT TO 6000 FT; BUT I HAD TO MISS 2 DEP ACFT CLBING TO 7000 FT. ONCE ACFT X WAS CLR OF THIS TFC; I HAD TO GET THE PLANE DOWN QUICKLY FOR OVERFLT TFC THAT WAS E TO W AT 8000 FT. ONCE ACFT X WAS CLR OF THE OVERFLT AND DEPS OFF THE ARPT; I NEEDED TO GET THE ACFT DOWN TO 4000 FT. I INSTRUCTED THE W ARR CTLR TO DSND ACFT X TO 4000 FT HDG 090 DEGS. THIS WOULD PROVIDE DIVERGENCE WITH AN EBOUND DEP. THE W ARR CTLR SAW THIS ACFT AND REFUSED TO DSND THE ACFT X WHILE I WAS COORDINATING WITH THE DEP CTLR. AFTER I WAS FINISHED; I WENT BACK TO THE W ARR CTLR AND REISSUED MY INSTRUCTIONS WITH AN EXPLANATION OF SEPARATION. THE DIFFICULTY IN GETTING ACFT X TO RWY 27 WAS NOT WORTH THE TROUBLE; AND I; AS COORDINATOR; KNEW THIS. THE SUPVR HAD JUST BEEN MONITORING THE PARALLEL FINAL CTLRS; SO HE WAS NOT CLR AS TO THE WHOLE PICTURE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.