Mht controller described a go around event required because of the spacing provided by A90 with two ...

Narrative:

An A300 [was] cleared to land on runway 24 while approach cleared a B737 for a visual approach to runway 17; the intersecting runway. No separation applied prior to shipping both aircraft to the tower. By letter of agreement between A90 the radar facility and mht tower; mht does not have control of arriving aircraft and is not responsible for successive arrival separation. The B737 was advised to continue the approach and expect landing clearance short final and be prepared to go around. Weather was VMC and the B737 had the A300 in sight. Event occurred at night. The aircraft tied at the intersection and the B737 was sent around to avoid collision. The A300 inquired as to what type of separation was being provided and was advised to contact the tower supervisor. A90 is interpreting the handbook as stating that as long as simultaneous visual approaches are being conducted and are advertised on the ATIS; then standard separation is; aircraft don't hit at the intersection. A90 management is aware of this problem and believes their interpretation is correct. Someone from headquarters needs to look into this innovative interpretation.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MHT Controller described a go around event required because of the spacing provided by A90 with two arrival aircraft to intersecting runways; the reporter questioning A90's separation procedures.

Narrative: An A300 [was] cleared to land on Runway 24 while approach cleared a B737 for a visual approach to Runway 17; the intersecting runway. No separation applied prior to shipping both aircraft to the Tower. By Letter Of Agreement between A90 the RADAR facility and MHT Tower; MHT does not have control of arriving aircraft and is not responsible for successive arrival separation. The B737 was advised to continue the approach and expect landing clearance short final and be prepared to go around. Weather was VMC and the B737 had the A300 in sight. Event occurred at night. The aircraft tied at the intersection and the B737 was sent around to avoid collision. The A300 inquired as to what type of separation was being provided and was advised to contact the Tower Supervisor. A90 is interpreting the handbook as stating that as long as simultaneous visual approaches are being conducted and are advertised on the ATIS; then standard separation is; aircraft don't hit at the intersection. A90 Management is aware of this problem and believes their interpretation is correct. Someone from Headquarters needs to look into this innovative interpretation.

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.

Attributes
ACN	919449
Time
Date	201011
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	MHT.Tower
State Reference	NH
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	A300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Landing
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Landing
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Local
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Mht controller described a go around event required because of the spacing provided by A90 with two arrival aircraft to intersecting runways; the reporter questioning A90's separation procedures.