Narrative:

The weather was VFR; night; and ILS runway 22L and ILS runway 11 approaches were in use; departing runway 22R. Relief briefing was in progress. The GLF5 was cleared for takeoff from the full length of 22R when the E170 was on approximately a 4 mile final for 11. A B747 was on final for 22L with an E145 in trail to him on the approach. The E170 was switched to me on a 7 mile final at about 230 KTS while the B747 was doing only about 160 KTS. I tried to slow the E170 and give s-turns to make it work; but the B747 continued to slow and the E170 was too far ahead of the ghost target. I sent the E170 around on a 220 heading at 2;500 ft trying to protect for the B747 missed approach path. The E170 was 3 miles west of the field and the glf was off the departure end on a 190 heading; shortly to be 220 due to the SID. I had all aircraft in sight at all times and did not see a need to establish visual between the E170 and the glf due to the fact that as the E170 went into the turn and climbed; I already had about 4 miles and increasing. My coordinator relayed the go-around instructions to departure; but they misunderstood and thought the E145 behind the B747 was being pulled out. When I saw that tag switch to a departure tag I called departure handoff and advised them that it was the runway 11 arrival that had been issued the go-around instructions. Later; I was informed that departure had started to turn the glf west and that there was a possible loss of separation between the E170 and the glf.it is quite common that N90 does not successfully vector to the ghost target when we are conducting intersecting runway operations on runway's 22L and 11. In this case; there was no possibility of avoiding a go-around because of the headwind on the 22 final and tailwind on the 11 final. Circling was also not an option due to wake turbulence from the B747. Had the E170 been vectored behind the ghost and been given a speed reduction prior to being switched to me it would have worked. In situations when winds do not favor 11 arrivals; we conduct them anyway for the purposes of overflow and reducing delays. However at all times; and especially when the winds do not favor 11; accurate vectoring to the ghost target is even more important. Unfortunately; it never seems to improve. Other than that this boiled down to misunderstanding. The departure controller thought the wrong aircraft was going around. Had he known it was the E170 I am positive he would have kept the glf on a more southern heading before turning him or turned him back south if he had already issued the instructions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EWR Controller described a go-around event during intersecting Runway 22L/11 operations. The reporter claimed that C90 controllers frequently fail to properly utilize sufficient spacing when vectoring behind the 'ghost' target.

Narrative: The weather was VFR; night; and ILS Runway 22L and ILS Runway 11 approaches were in use; departing Runway 22R. Relief briefing was in progress. The GLF5 was cleared for takeoff from the full length of 22R when the E170 was on approximately a 4 mile final for 11. A B747 was on final for 22L with an E145 in trail to him on the approach. The E170 was switched to me on a 7 mile final at about 230 KTS while the B747 was doing only about 160 KTS. I tried to slow the E170 and give S-turns to make it work; but the B747 continued to slow and the E170 was too far ahead of the ghost target. I sent the E170 around on a 220 heading at 2;500 FT trying to protect for the B747 missed approach path. The E170 was 3 miles west of the field and the GLF was off the departure end on a 190 heading; shortly to be 220 due to the SID. I had all aircraft in sight at all times and did not see a need to establish visual between the E170 and the GLF due to the fact that as the E170 went into the turn and climbed; I already had about 4 miles and increasing. My Coordinator relayed the go-around instructions to Departure; but they misunderstood and thought the E145 behind the B747 was being pulled out. When I saw that tag switch to a departure tag I called Departure handoff and advised them that it was the Runway 11 arrival that had been issued the go-around instructions. Later; I was informed that Departure had started to turn the GLF west and that there was a possible loss of separation between the E170 and the GLF.It is quite common that N90 does not successfully vector to the ghost target when we are conducting intersecting runway operations on Runway's 22L and 11. In this case; there was no possibility of avoiding a go-around because of the headwind on the 22 final and tailwind on the 11 final. Circling was also not an option due to wake turbulence from the B747. Had the E170 been vectored behind the ghost and been given a speed reduction prior to being switched to me it would have worked. In situations when winds do not favor 11 arrivals; we conduct them anyway for the purposes of overflow and reducing delays. However at all times; and especially when the winds do not favor 11; accurate vectoring to the ghost target is even more important. Unfortunately; it never seems to improve. Other than that this boiled down to misunderstanding. The Departure Controller thought the wrong aircraft was going around. Had he known it was the E170 I am positive he would have kept the GLF on a more southern heading before turning him or turned him back south if he had already issued the instructions.

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.