Tower Operations on intersecting runways
 

I read this report on Avherald about a loss of separation on crossing runways with departing traffic on one, and traffic executing a go-around on the other. The minimum separation mentioned (100ft vertical, .3nm horizontal) is fairly high pucker-factor!

How are things like this normally co-ordinated amongst controllers? In this case it would appear that there was a different Tower controller handling each runway, and departures and arrivals using separate runways in an unusual (for europe) configuration.

I assume you would always have a "what-if" plan in case we go around for any reason?

Long time since I did it, but it was just a matter of talking to the controller next to me who was working the other runway. If something unexpected occurred it was just a case of saying "You go straight ahead and I'll turn left", or similar. It should be straightforward between two qualified controllers.

Do this most days here in Melbourne with LAHSO procedures (not so much the go rounds but having 2 acft landing 27 and 34 or a dep off 27 with one landing 34). And only one ADC.

You had different controllers working two runways which crossed? Is that not asking for trouble?

What I was trying to get at was how the issuing of clearances work - you clear somebody to land on one runway; will somebody be cleared to land on the other runway at the same time?

Equally, will someone be cleared to takeoff at the same time one one runway as someone is landing on the other?

I know you can't expect things to go wrong all the time, but how do you deal with the intersections of T/O and Go around, or an RTO or similar? The former would need fairly fast footwork I imagine in what is already a high workload period for the crews.

LAHSO are streng verboten in my company and I have no experience of how they're conducted.

<<What I was trying to get at was how the issuing of clearances work - you clear somebody to land on one runway; will somebody be cleared to land on the other runway at the same time?>>

OK, where I worked I'm thinking in this case of two runways which did not cross, although the extended centrelines did and the ends of the runways were very close. Yes, we would clear aircraft to land on both runways simultaneously. One controller would be dealing with one landing runway and another controller would be dealing with the landings on the other runway plus crossing departures on a third runway.

You'd think that the planners would design these a bit better....

[quoteyou clear somebody to land on one runway; will somebody be cleared to land on the other runway at the same time?

Equally, will someone be cleared to takeoff at the same time one one runway as someone is landing on the other?][/quote]

Basically, yes. Traffic given, and minimum met conditions to (hopefully) ensure that in the event of a double go round visual separation can be applied until there is a radar standard.

In the days of RAF Manston, the traffic pattern was;

Main runway (10/28) with light a/c at 1000', large/jets at 1500'.

Grass runway (06/24), just to the north of the main, with light a/c at 800'.

Gliders operating from the Northern Grass in their own circuit, or 202 Sqn Sea Kings operating circuits on the Northern Grass area.

All three circuits were operated simultaneously. Being examined by the Cat Board in Local one day, the examiner unplugged after 20 minutes saying that he couldn't get the mental picture of what was happening (a combined 13 a/c in three circuits). Fun days.

If you clear someone to use the full length of a cross runway you automatically allow them the intersection too, thus you have given away the other runway. As such, you can only allow 1 movement at a time if you allow either runway full length, the only exception being if you give away either runway short of the intersection.

You can have an aircraft on approach to both runways at the same time, however they would be sequenced in such a way that the preceding aircraft would be clear of the intersection before you clear the subsequent aircraft to land.

In the event of a missed approach, the standard missed approaches would be designed so as not to conflict with each other, but if that was not the case essential traffic info and reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome would be the fallback.