Narrative:

VFR daytime. Arriving and departing runway 30L; 29; 24. Runway 30R closed. MD80 holding short of runway 30L. Traffic on 5 NM final for runway 30L. Previous arrivals on runway 24. Traffic airborne from runway 30L and traffic rolling on runway 29. A BE30 had been taxied to runway 24 for departure. I issued tiph (taxi into position and hold) runway 24 to the BE30. I received what I thought was a response from the BE30. It was later determined to be an answer from similar call sign at runway 30L. During my runway scan; I observed the MD80 moving toward runway 30L on taxiway hotel; and it looked like the pilot was going to cross the hold short line. I immediately decided that he would not be able to stop short of the hold line; so I instructed him to cross runway 30L at hotel and make a 180 degree turn on the other side. An arrival was still approximately on a 3NM final; so I allowed him to landed after the MD80 exited the runway. This event occurred because I missed an incorrect read-back. The poor command of english language by MD80 crew contributed to event. Tower and TRACON's continued use of crossing runway's all morning; instead of utilizing just the parallel runways; contributed to the event. Volume did not dictate the use of the third crossing runway. There is a continuing perception at T75 and stl tower; that runway 24 saves fuel and time; while landing on runway 29 is an unjustifiable delay in landing-to-gate-time. This increases complexity; and sets up potential collision risk at intersections of runway 24/30R and runway 24/30L; as well as danger to taxiing traffic outbound to runway 29 which must cross runway 24. T75 recently received 'categorical exclusion' for runway 29 arrivals; previously restricted to 'below lda minima only'. Use of runway 24 has not diminished with the advent of the CAT ex. I was concerned with hitting the gap at 30L with the BE30 on runway 24; and did not focus on the language-challenged MD80 holding short of 30L. Recommendation; TRACON opts for runway 24 arrivals mainly for radar controller convenience; as the vandalia arrival dumps aircraft into T75 airspace close to runway 24 localizer. They have no concept of the dangers that crossing traffic flows create on the airport surface. Tower is preoccupied with quick landing-to-gate times; because our traffic level continues to decline; and users continue to cut daily flights. They are trying to save the airlines some money; but incorrectly weighing the risks of a crossing runway operation. We did that here for years when we had no choice. We have a better flow available now. Mandate a 'no crossing runway flow' at stl when weather; wind; and volume are not an issue. And do it soon. This event would not have happened if I was using the parallels only.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: STL controller described a perceived unsafe ATC operating practice when multiple/intersecting runways are used and traffic and/or weather conditions are not a determining factor

Narrative: VFR Daytime. Arriving and departing Runway 30L; 29; 24. Runway 30R CLOSED. MD80 holding short of Runway 30L. Traffic on 5 NM final for Runway 30L. Previous arrivals on Runway 24. Traffic airborne from Runway 30L and traffic rolling on Runway 29. A BE30 had been taxied to Runway 24 for departure. I issued TIPH (Taxi Into Position and Hold) Runway 24 to the BE30. I received what I thought was a response from the BE30. It was later determined to be an answer from similar call sign at Runway 30L. During my runway scan; I observed the MD80 moving toward Runway 30L on Taxiway Hotel; and it looked like the pilot was going to cross the Hold Short Line. I immediately decided that he would not be able to stop short of the hold line; so I instructed him to cross Runway 30L at Hotel and make a 180 degree turn on the other side. An arrival was still approximately on a 3NM final; so I allowed him to landed after the MD80 exited the runway. This event occurred because I missed an incorrect read-back. The poor command of English language by MD80 crew contributed to event. Tower and TRACON's continued use of crossing runway's all morning; instead of utilizing just the parallel runways; contributed to the event. Volume did not dictate the use of the third crossing runway. There is a continuing perception at T75 and STL Tower; that Runway 24 saves fuel and time; while landing on Runway 29 is an unjustifiable delay in landing-to-gate-time. This increases complexity; and sets up potential collision risk at intersections of Runway 24/30R and Runway 24/30L; as well as danger to taxiing traffic outbound to Runway 29 which must cross Runway 24. T75 recently received 'Categorical Exclusion' for Runway 29 arrivals; previously restricted to 'Below LDA Minima Only'. Use of Runway 24 has not diminished with the advent of the CAT EX. I was concerned with hitting the gap at 30L with the BE30 on Runway 24; and did not focus on the language-challenged MD80 holding short of 30L. Recommendation; TRACON opts for Runway 24 arrivals mainly for RADAR controller convenience; as the Vandalia Arrival dumps aircraft into T75 airspace close to Runway 24 Localizer. They have no concept of the dangers that crossing traffic flows create on the airport surface. Tower is preoccupied with quick landing-to-gate times; because our traffic level continues to decline; and users continue to cut daily flights. They are trying to save the airlines some money; but incorrectly weighing the risks of a crossing runway operation. We did that here for years when we had no choice. We have a better flow available now. Mandate a 'no crossing runway flow' at STL when weather; wind; and volume are not an issue. And do it soon. This event would not have happened if I was using the parallels only.

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.