Narrative:

Air carrier X was on the VOR/DME approach to runway 22L followed on approach by an A320; conditions were very marginal for this approach with minimums published at 450 ft and numerous PIREP's of ceiling 300 ft with a scud layer of clouds. While this event took place numerous missed approaches were executed by the previous aircraft on approach. On initial contact I was given more than the required five miles lateral separation with air carrier X being the leading aircraft. As I was coordinating the previous missed approach (due to the same weather conditions) air carrier X slowed in an attempt to land and the A320 maintained his assigned speed to the final approach fix. When air carrier X executed his missed approach on short final; the A320 may have been within the five lateral miles required. The weather was marginal VFR and forecasted to become worse yet we switched from and ILS precision approach to runway 22L and went to the VOR/DME non-precision approach so that we could accommodate departure traffic off two runways and share airspace with lga tower/departure. In an effort to be more efficient the operation was much less safe considering weather conditions and winds aloft. As a result of six successive missed approaches we were forced to change back to a precision approach; the ILS runway 22L. As I was in process of coordinating headings and altitudes with approach control for missed approaches; another airbus was vectored in on the ILS runway 22L. Following was a DC10 transferred over with more than the required six lateral miles. After finishing coordination with previous missed approaches; the second airbus was short final and the DC10 may not have had the required six lateral miles separation. Weather was a major factor along with unusual situations of many missed approaches. The weather was marginal VFR and forecasted to become worse yet we switched from and ILS precision approach to runway 22L and went to the VOR/DME non precision approach so that we could accommodate departure traffic off two runways and share airspace with lga tower/departure. In an effort to be more efficient the operation was much less safe. During such weather conditions safety should not be compromised for efficiency. Because lga cannot operate without both the belmont and coney airspace; we are forced to choose between a non precision approach and two departure runways. The need for two departure runways is necessary for efficiency but that should not be compromised for safety.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: JFK Controller described a series of go arounds due to weather conditions; the reporter states JFK's runway assignments are influenced by the needs of surrounding airports and do not always conform to current conditions.

Narrative: Air Carrier X was on the VOR/DME approach to Runway 22L followed on approach by an A320; conditions were very marginal for this approach with minimums published at 450 FT and numerous PIREP's of ceiling 300 FT with a scud layer of clouds. While this event took place numerous missed approaches were executed by the previous aircraft on approach. On initial contact I was given more than the required five miles lateral separation with Air Carrier X being the leading aircraft. As I was coordinating the previous missed approach (due to the same weather conditions) Air Carrier X slowed in an attempt to land and the A320 maintained his assigned speed to the final approach fix. When Air Carrier X executed his missed approach on short final; the A320 may have been within the five lateral miles required. The weather was marginal VFR and forecasted to become worse yet we switched from and ILS precision approach to Runway 22L and went to the VOR/DME non-precision approach so that we could accommodate departure traffic off two runways and share airspace with LGA Tower/Departure. In an effort to be more efficient the operation was much less safe considering weather conditions and winds aloft. As a result of six successive missed approaches we were forced to change back to a precision approach; the ILS Runway 22L. As I was in process of coordinating headings and altitudes with Approach Control for missed approaches; another Airbus was vectored in on the ILS Runway 22L. Following was a DC10 transferred over with more than the required six lateral miles. After finishing coordination with previous missed approaches; the second Airbus was short final and the DC10 may not have had the required six lateral miles separation. Weather was a major factor along with unusual situations of many missed approaches. The weather was marginal VFR and forecasted to become worse yet we switched from and ILS precision approach to Runway 22L and went to the VOR/DME non precision approach so that we could accommodate departure traffic off two runways and share airspace with LGA Tower/Departure. In an effort to be more efficient the operation was much less safe. During such weather conditions safety should not be compromised for efficiency. Because LGA cannot operate without both the Belmont and Coney airspace; we are forced to choose between a non precision approach and two departure runways. The need for two departure runways is necessary for efficiency but that should not be compromised for safety.

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.