Narrative:

Complexity was an issue. Was instructed to hit departure holes on local center (runway 26L) to keep delays to a minimum. Aircraft taxiing out were told to expect either runway 26L or 26R as their departure runway. Traffic on final were conducting visual approaches (weather clear and no ceiling); aircraft X was told to taxi into position and hold rwy 26L and advised of traffic 3 to 4 mile final landing runway 26L. Previous landing aircraft taxied off high speed taxiway and aircraft X was cleared for immediate takeoff and reissued traffic on final that was 2 1/2 mile final. Aircraft X was slow to role probably due to weight. Aircraft X was issued traffic of the expected departure and continued his approach to runway 26L. By the time aircraft Y crossed the landing threshold of runway 26L it appeared that aircraft X's nose wheel gear had rotated yet aircraft X was approximately 6000 feet from approach end threshold. Recommendation; don't deviate from our normal departure flow of departures to runway 15L/right. Normal flow at iah works fine having our departures taxi to either rwy 15L/right; however; because of the delay issue sometimes iah feels pressed to depart runway 26L or runway 26R and land runway 26L and runway 27; which creates a crossing scenario that is unsafe as well. I recommend that if we need to add an additional departure runway (i.e.; runway 26L) then we land only runway 26R and runway 27 because it is safer to cross the departure end of a takeoff runway than to hit arrival holes with departures or runway crossings. Also having visual distance landmarks that can be seen from tower would aid in determining runway distance if and when we are required to hit departure holes. At this time all information is stored in a book binder and can not be readily accessed for quick observation. Having the information under plexiglass on the positions where it can be seen readily; is by far better and more user friendly than looking through an air traffic binder.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IAH Local Controller described loss of separation event involving a departure and arrival aircraft; reporter claiming complexity was an issue as was the expectation to maximize arrival/departure traffic.

Narrative: Complexity was an issue. Was instructed to hit departure holes on Local Center (Runway 26L) to keep delays to a minimum. Aircraft taxiing out were told to expect either Runway 26L or 26R as their departure runway. Traffic on final were conducting visual approaches (weather clear and no ceiling); Aircraft X was told to taxi into position and hold Rwy 26L and advised of traffic 3 to 4 mile final landing Runway 26L. Previous landing aircraft taxied off high speed taxiway and Aircraft X was cleared for immediate takeoff and reissued traffic on final that was 2 1/2 mile final. Aircraft X was slow to role probably due to weight. Aircraft X was issued traffic of the expected departure and continued his approach to Runway 26L. By the time Aircraft Y crossed the landing threshold of Runway 26L it appeared that Aircraft X's nose wheel gear had rotated yet Aircraft X was approximately 6000 feet from approach end threshold. Recommendation; don't deviate from our normal departure flow of departures to Runway 15L/R. Normal flow at IAH works fine having our departures taxi to either Rwy 15L/R; however; because of the delay issue sometimes IAH feels pressed to depart Runway 26L or Runway 26R and land Runway 26L and Runway 27; which creates a crossing scenario that is unsafe as well. I recommend that if we need to add an additional departure runway (i.e.; Runway 26L) then we land only Runway 26R and Runway 27 because it is safer to cross the departure end of a takeoff runway than to hit arrival holes with departures or runway crossings. Also having visual distance landmarks that can be seen from Tower would aid in determining runway distance if and when we are required to hit departure holes. At this time all information is stored in a book binder and can not be readily accessed for quick observation. Having the information under plexiglass on the positions where it can be seen readily; is by far better and more user friendly than looking through an Air Traffic Binder.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.