Narrative:

Aircraft X; a B747-400; was arriving miami runway 9. When on an approximate 12 mile final I was advised by the tower that some debris was reported on the runway and to side-step aircraft X to the runway 8R. I had already cleared a B737 for a visual approach to 8L. Runway 8R and 8L are separated by approximately 900 feet. Thus; wake turbulence separation applies as if the parallels were a single runway. The B737 was about 6 miles behind the B747 and some 60 knots ground speed faster. To accomplish the side step I would need: a) aircraft X to agree to side step; b) sequence aircraft X behind traffic landing the crossing runway 12; c) aircraft Y to slow down immediately and agree to a visual separation procedure behind a heavy; and d) turn the B737 to the north. I hesitated and called the local south controller to find if this debris was a quick pick-up or a long-term issue. The response was 'I don't know'. I elected to continue aircraft X for runway 9 for the time being. This was due to my control judgment that it would be unsafe for a side-step due to a variety of reasons: language barrier with aircraft X; time to get agreement; clearance; and acknowledgment from both aircraft X and aircraft Y; while slowing and turning by both aircraft; all within 10 miles of the landing runway. Also; aircraft X had briefed; configured; and been cleared for runway 9. Too much; too late in a critical phase of flight. I climbed aircraft X to 3000' with a right box around pattern staying within ten miles of the field to a successful landing. Aircraft X never complained. Today; I was called in by my supervisor to counsel me for poor performance and failure to follow his directive to move aircraft X to the north runway. The supervisor was in the tower and not in the approach control and was not my supervisor at the moment. The supervisor stated he was angry regarding for my failure to follow his direction. First of all; aircraft X did not make a 'go-around' or a 'missed approach.' in fact; aircraft X never got with 8 miles of runway 9. Bottom line for me is that I considered the situation unsafe. I was responsible for the position and the safety of the aircraft involved. This is a failure of CRM as I have been trained. Allow controllers to do the job as trained and use good control judgment as necessary. Even if the supervisor did not agree; allow safety to be the determining factor.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower Controller issued a go around contrary to supervisory instructions to side step a B747 to a parallel runway; listing several factors as justification for those actions.

Narrative: Aircraft X; a B747-400; was arriving Miami Runway 9. When on an approximate 12 mile final I was advised by the Tower that some debris was reported on the runway and to side-step Aircraft X to the Runway 8R. I had already cleared a B737 for a visual approach to 8L. Runway 8R and 8L are separated by approximately 900 feet. Thus; wake turbulence separation applies as if the parallels were a single runway. The B737 was about 6 miles behind the B747 and some 60 knots ground speed faster. To accomplish the side step I would need: a) Aircraft X to agree to side step; b) Sequence Aircraft X behind traffic landing the crossing Runway 12; c) Aircraft Y to slow down immediately and agree to a visual separation procedure behind a heavy; and d) Turn the B737 to the north. I hesitated and called the Local South controller to find if this debris was a quick pick-up or a long-term issue. The response was 'I don't know'. I elected to continue Aircraft X for Runway 9 for the time being. This was due to my control judgment that it would be unsafe for a side-step due to a variety of reasons: Language barrier with Aircraft X; time to get agreement; clearance; and acknowledgment from both Aircraft X and Aircraft Y; while slowing and turning by both aircraft; all within 10 miles of the landing runway. Also; Aircraft X had briefed; configured; and been cleared for Runway 9. Too much; too late in a critical phase of flight. I climbed Aircraft X to 3000' with a right box around pattern staying within ten miles of the field to a successful landing. Aircraft X never complained. Today; I was called in by my supervisor to counsel me for poor performance and failure to follow his directive to move Aircraft X to the North runway. The supervisor was in the tower and not in the approach control and was not my supervisor at the moment. The supervisor stated he was angry regarding for my failure to follow his direction. First of all; Aircraft X did not make a 'go-around' or a 'missed approach.' In fact; Aircraft X never got with 8 miles of Runway 9. Bottom line for me is that I considered the situation unsafe. I was responsible for the position and the safety of the aircraft involved. This is a failure of CRM as I have been trained. Allow controllers to do the job as trained and use good control judgment as necessary. Even if the supervisor did not agree; allow safety to be the determining factor.

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.