Narrative:

I was working a VFR traffic advisory position. The weather was IFR. The weather went down to BKN008 and 4 SM visibility; and we were discussing in the tower cab the requirements for the ILS critical areas. Since I had no traffic on my VFR advisory position I was watching the local controller's traffic to ensure wake turbulence separation on arrivals. I noticed a BE20 on a 4 NM final; and a CRJ2 inside the ILS critical area not required to be protected at that time; when the local controller reached out for the CRJ2. The CRJ2 was taxiing slowly; as they do often. The local controller then cleared the CRJ2 for takeoff with the BE20 on or just inside a 3 NM final with a radar ground speed of 140 KTS. The CRJ2 did not hurry at all due to the IFR conditions and probably did a company required IFR takeoff procedure with the ceiling at 800 ft broken. When the BE20 was on a 1 NM final; the CRJ2 had just started departure roll; and the local controller issued a go-around to the BE20 and side step to the right of the runway. Takeoff clearance could have still been canceled to keep the CRJ2 on the ground; but may have used the majority of the runway to slowdown and stop. When the CRJ2 was rotating; the BE20 was behind about 500-700 ft; about 150 AGL and offset to the right an unknown distance. This was the closest I have seen two aircraft come to each other in my FAA career. I didn't hear all of the transmissions made by the local controller; but while he was coordinating the go-around; I heard from the BE20 'I'll maintain visual as long as I can see him' over the loud speaker. The go-around was properly coordinated; but the approach controller issued a 320 heading. The controller in charge told the local controller that he/she needed at least a 325 heading for divergence. During the coordination; the BE20 was basically flying formation with the CRJ2. About 2/3 down the runway both aircraft were airborne with minimal actual separation. The BE20 was then issued the 325 heading and climb to 2;000; and the CRJ2 was left on the departure procedure (runway heading until 5.5 DME on the localizer; then turn right 010; maintain 5;000.) both airplanes appeared on the radar at the same time; with very little lateral separation; but were on diverging courses. The BE20 returned on an ILS approach with no problems. Had this situation been in visual conditions; the BE20 could have seen the CRJ2 while on a 3 NM final and slowed down to accommodate the departure. However; the IFR conditions dictated IFR procedures in the cockpit and appropriate speeds flown while on the ILS in IMC. The controller should have never launched the CRJ2 in front of the BE20 on a 3 NM final in IFR conditions. The particular airline that flies the CRJ2 is known to be slower and take more time than other operators when cleared for takeoff. The local controller had no intentions or desires to cause an accident; incident; or to lose separation; the initial judgment was that it would work. This controller has an undocumented history/reputation of launching airplanes to push the separation requirements in visual conditions. He has done this while training brand new developmental controllers. This controller thinks that all jet aircraft perform the same; and does not factor in past performance to make current decisions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower Controller described a conflict event when the Local Controller issued a last minute go around resulting in a side by situation with an aircraft on take off roll.

Narrative: I was working a VFR traffic advisory position. The weather was IFR. The weather went down to BKN008 and 4 SM visibility; and we were discussing in the Tower cab the requirements for the ILS critical areas. Since I had no traffic on my VFR advisory position I was watching the Local Controller's traffic to ensure wake turbulence separation on arrivals. I noticed a BE20 on a 4 NM final; and a CRJ2 inside the ILS critical area not required to be protected at that time; when the Local Controller reached out for the CRJ2. The CRJ2 was taxiing slowly; as they do often. The Local Controller then cleared the CRJ2 for takeoff with the BE20 on or just inside a 3 NM final with a RADAR ground speed of 140 KTS. The CRJ2 did not hurry at all due to the IFR conditions and probably did a company required IFR takeoff procedure with the ceiling at 800 FT broken. When the BE20 was on a 1 NM final; the CRJ2 had just started departure roll; and the Local Controller issued a go-around to the BE20 and side step to the right of the runway. Takeoff clearance could have still been canceled to keep the CRJ2 on the ground; but may have used the majority of the runway to slowdown and stop. When the CRJ2 was rotating; the BE20 was behind about 500-700 FT; about 150 AGL and offset to the right an unknown distance. This was the closest I have seen two aircraft come to each other in my FAA career. I didn't hear all of the transmissions made by the Local Controller; but while he was coordinating the go-around; I heard from the BE20 'I'll maintain visual as long as I can see him' over the loud speaker. The go-around was properly coordinated; but the Approach Controller issued a 320 heading. The CIC told the Local Controller that he/she needed at least a 325 heading for divergence. During the coordination; the BE20 was basically flying formation with the CRJ2. About 2/3 down the runway both aircraft were airborne with minimal actual separation. The BE20 was then issued the 325 heading and climb to 2;000; and the CRJ2 was left on the departure procedure (runway heading until 5.5 DME on the localizer; then turn right 010; maintain 5;000.) Both airplanes appeared on the RADAR at the same time; with very little lateral separation; but were on diverging courses. The BE20 returned on an ILS approach with no problems. Had this situation been in visual conditions; the BE20 could have seen the CRJ2 while on a 3 NM final and slowed down to accommodate the departure. However; the IFR conditions dictated IFR procedures in the cockpit and appropriate speeds flown while on the ILS in IMC. The controller should have never launched the CRJ2 in front of the BE20 on a 3 NM final in IFR conditions. The particular airline that flies the CRJ2 is known to be slower and take more time than other operators when cleared for takeoff. The Local Controller had no intentions or desires to cause an accident; incident; or to lose separation; the initial judgment was that it would work. This Controller has an undocumented history/reputation of launching airplanes to push the separation requirements in visual conditions. He has done this while training brand new Developmental Controllers. This Controller thinks that all jet aircraft perform the same; and does not factor in past performance to make current decisions.

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.