Narrative:

I had just accepted responsibility for the rw position and noticed a conflict developing between traffic on approach to runway 17L; aircraft X; and an unknown air carrier; air carrier Y; on approach to runway 17R. The data tag for aircraft X had originally shown runway 17L; but the local controller changed the runway assignment to runway 17R; and allowed aircraft X to circle in front of the other air carrier on approach to land on runway 17L. It appeared that aircraft X was inside the final approach fix (FAF) when this runway change occurred; and air carrier Y was approaching the runway 17R FAF when aircraft X started turning towards runway 17R. There was approximately 100 knots of overtake at this time; and aircraft X was the slower and lead aircraft. Final was combined to rw; but there was training at re. Re initiated an automated point-out on all arrival aircraft to rw prior to the time when I accepted responsibility for rw; so re was responsible for the sequence. However; the local controller changed the runway and sequence for aircraft X without coordination with final and/or re; and this change impacted the sequence; as air carrier Y had a faster ground speed. Aircraft X was now #1 for runway 17R; and air carrier Y was #2; with a significant overtake; and losing separation at a rapid rate. There was no other traffic on approach runway 17L; and we did not observe any departures from runway 17L for quite a while; so aircraft X was not moved to runway 17R to allow traffic to depart from runway 17L. In fact; we later learned that the local controller moved aircraft X to runway 17R because the pilot requested that runway. This is yet another example of the manner in which we operate at aus: our controllers have been trained to put as many air carriers on runway 17R/35L as possible; and this is due to the fact that runway 17R is closer to some air carrier gates by several hundred yards. I call this 'put 'em where they park'; and our facility has a pattern and practice of putting aircraft on the runway that is closest to their gate; even though we are only talking about a difference of a few hundred yards. The local controller finally issued break-out or go-around instructions to aircraft X; and then issued right-closed-traffic to runway 17R for aircraft X. This information was never coordinated to me by the local controller; but the flm later informed me where aircraft X was going. I'm not sure who told the flm. I told aircraft Y to expect runway 17L due to the go-around situation; and my plan was to stagger behind or above aircraft X. When aircraft Y was switched to the tower; I observed the local controller do the exact same thing; and change aircraft Y to runway 17R. I called the tower and asked if they had learned anything from the previous go-around; but got no reply. Aircraft Y received three runway changes. I was trying to balance the airport; balance the finals; balance the runways and provide the tower with departure gaps and appropriate spacing; but the local controller was determined to put all XXX aircarrier's aircraft on runway 17R because that's the runway that XXX likes to use. Recommendation; 1. The pattern and practice of giving the pilot his/her preferred runway must stop. Aus controllers are under the mistaken belief that we must approve each and every pilot request; and this often leads to poor sequences; inadequate spacing on final; a lack of departure gaps; and runways and approaches that are completely underutilized. 2. The pattern and practice of giving air carriers runway 17R often creates a final approach course that is 20 miles long; with no aircraft on approach to land on runway 17R. When queried about this; aus controllers will simply say that the pilot wanted runway 17R; and then the aircraft flies an additional 20 miles or more; when the aircraft could actually be number one and on the ground for runway 17l3. A similar practice can be observed when there is a large number of general aviation (GA) aircraft inbound to land; and most aus controllers will sequence all of their GA aircraft to runway 17L/35R. The final will be 20 miles long with not a single GA aircraft on the west runway (17R/35L). 4. TRACON flm's need to be more proactive in directing the flow of traffic; they need to direct the the feeder controllers (rw and re) to balance the runways; they need to direct the final controller to change the runway assignments if necessary; and these practices need to start during the early stages of training for new employees before bad habits become too ingrained. 5. Tower flm's and controller in charge's need to be more pro-active in stopping local controllers from changing runway assignments unless it is absolutely necessary. Runway changes affect the speed; spacing; and sequence to the other runway; and these runway changes are being made without coordinating with final controller. 6. There is a 3;000 MVA west/northwest of aus; and aus controllers routinely issue air carriers closed traffic pattern at an altitude that penetrates this MVA. The response is generally; 'well; he's VFR now; executing a go-around; right closed traffic to runway 17R; what's the problem?'; although the air carrier is on an IFR flight plan; has not canceled IFR; and is flying through a 3;000 MVA at 2;000. Is this legal? Which brings me to another question: who owns the final? Due to the fact that final is open; closed; combined with rw; combined with re; and due to the fact that rw might own the final; but re is running a bunch of aircraft in the final airspace; or that re owns the final and rw is running a bunch of aircraft in the final airspace; no one really knows who owns the final; or which land line button to press to speak with the controller who is calling the sequence. Open final; and keep it open. Stop this senseless opening; closing; combining; de-combining; briefing; and creating general confusion with regards to the final airspace.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AUS Controller provided a detailed account of TRACON vs. Tower runway assignment procedures; claiming frequent tower initiated runway changes result in go around's impacting sequencing; separation and overall airport capacity.

Narrative: I had just accepted responsibility for the RW position and noticed a conflict developing between traffic on approach to Runway 17L; Aircraft X; and an Unknown Air Carrier; ACR Y; on approach to Runway 17R. The data tag for Aircraft X had originally shown Runway 17L; but the Local Controller changed the runway assignment to Runway 17R; and allowed Aircraft X to circle in front of the other air carrier on approach to land on Runway 17L. It appeared that Aircraft X was inside the Final Approach Fix (FAF) when this runway change occurred; and ACR Y was approaching the Runway 17R FAF when Aircraft X started turning towards Runway 17R. There was approximately 100 knots of overtake at this time; and Aircraft X was the slower and lead aircraft. Final was combined to RW; but there was training at RE. RE initiated an automated point-out on all arrival aircraft to RW prior to the time when I accepted responsibility for RW; so RE was responsible for the sequence. However; the Local Controller changed the runway and sequence for Aircraft X without coordination with Final and/or RE; and this change impacted the sequence; as ACR Y had a faster ground speed. Aircraft X was now #1 for Runway 17R; and ACR Y was #2; with a significant overtake; and losing separation at a rapid rate. There was no other traffic on approach Runway 17L; and we did not observe any departures from Runway 17L for quite a while; so Aircraft X was not moved to Runway 17R to allow traffic to depart from RWY 17L. In fact; we later learned that the Local Controller moved Aircraft X to Runway 17R because the pilot requested that runway. This is yet another example of the manner in which we operate at AUS: Our Controllers have been trained to put as many Air Carriers on Runway 17R/35L as possible; and this is due to the fact that Runway 17R is closer to some Air Carrier gates by several hundred yards. I call this 'PUT 'EM WHERE THEY PARK'; and our facility has a pattern and practice of putting aircraft on the runway that is closest to their gate; even though we are only talking about a difference of a few hundred yards. The Local Controller finally issued break-out or go-around instructions to Aircraft X; and then issued right-closed-traffic to Runway 17R for Aircraft X. This information was never coordinated to me by the Local Controller; but the FLM later informed me where Aircraft X was going. I'm not sure who told the FLM. I told Aircraft Y to expect Runway 17L due to the go-around situation; and my plan was to stagger behind or above Aircraft X. When Aircraft Y was switched to the Tower; I observed the Local Controller do the exact same thing; and change Aircraft Y to Runway 17R. I called the Tower and asked if they had learned anything from the previous go-around; but got no reply. Aircraft Y received three runway changes. I was trying to balance the airport; balance the finals; balance the runways and provide the Tower with departure gaps and appropriate spacing; but the Local Controller was determined to put all XXX Aircarrier's aircraft on Runway 17R because that's the runway that XXX likes to use. Recommendation; 1. The pattern and practice of giving the pilot his/her preferred runway must stop. AUS Controllers are under the mistaken belief that we must approve each and every pilot request; and this often leads to poor sequences; inadequate spacing on final; a lack of departure gaps; and runways and approaches that are completely underutilized. 2. The pattern and practice of giving Air Carriers Runway 17R often creates a final approach course that is 20 miles long; with no aircraft on approach to land on Runway 17R. When queried about this; AUS Controllers will simply say that the pilot wanted Runway 17R; and then the aircraft flies an additional 20 miles or more; when the aircraft could actually be number one and on the ground for Runway 17L3. A similar practice can be observed when there is a large number of General Aviation (GA) aircraft inbound to land; and most AUS Controllers will sequence all of their GA aircraft to Runway 17L/35R. The final will be 20 miles long with not a single GA aircraft on the West Runway (17R/35L). 4. TRACON FLM's need to be more proactive in directing the flow of traffic; they need to direct the the Feeder Controllers (RW and RE) to balance the runways; they need to direct the Final Controller to change the runway assignments if necessary; and these practices need to start during the early stages of training for new employees before bad habits become too ingrained. 5. Tower FLM's and CIC's need to be more pro-active in stopping Local Controllers from changing runway assignments unless it is absolutely necessary. Runway changes affect the speed; spacing; and sequence to the other runway; and these runway changes are being made without coordinating with Final Controller. 6. There is a 3;000 MVA West/Northwest of AUS; and AUS Controllers routinely issue Air Carriers closed traffic pattern at an altitude that penetrates this MVA. The response is generally; 'Well; he's VFR now; executing a go-around; right closed traffic to Runway 17R; what's the problem?'; although the Air Carrier is on an IFR flight plan; has not canceled IFR; and is flying through a 3;000 MVA at 2;000. Is this legal? Which brings me to another question: who owns the final? Due to the fact that final is open; closed; combined with RW; combined with RE; and due to the fact that RW might own the final; but RE is running a bunch of aircraft in the final airspace; or that RE owns the final and RW is running a bunch of aircraft in the final airspace; no one really knows who owns the final; or which land line button to press to speak with the Controller who is calling the sequence. Open final; and keep it open. Stop this senseless opening; closing; combining; de-combining; briefing; and creating general confusion with regards to the final airspace.

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.