Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 1.5
Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
I was training a CPC (Certified Professional Controller)/IT (In Training) on Local Control. The configuration was Bridge Visual 29 Approach; ILS 4R Approach; Depart 4L & Depart 29. The winds were gusting that day and caused us to use an approach (Bridge Visual) that we don't normally use since we were told it was unsafe. The trainee and I had observed the situation before we took the position to see how the aircraft were performing. The trainee and I both agreed that the situation was going to work; but when the Aircraft X became airborne he unexpectedly encountered a gust of wind that caused him to slow down in the air. This combined with the fact that the approach facility wasn't providing us with the coordinated mileage in trail caused us to run constant squeeze plays. We attempted to keep the aircraft away from each other by issuing runway heading to the Aircraft X; which they complied with; so he wouldn't turn towards the Aircraft Y as per the SID (Newark 1 Departure). After the Aircraft X dropped off of the ASDE-X; they reacquired on the ASDE-X and the audio/visual warning appeared stating that the two aircraft were converging. The Aircraft Y was already on a landing roll and the Aircraft X was still climbing.I believe the Bridge Visual 29 Approach should never be utilized. It makes it very hard for both the Approach & Local controllers to gauge the necessary spacing to allow gaps for departing aircraft to depart. It puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the Local controller to constantly adjust the final. Combine this with the over delivering on arrival rates from the approach control facility and the unfamiliarity with the pilots make this approach very dangerous. We've even witnessed some pilots flying an entirely different approach (the RNAV Z 29) because it's a more stable turn onto final and/or they simply don't have the Bridge Visual chart onboard. Furthermore; we've always been told that aircraft climbing through 200 feet shouldn't be within the capture area of the ASDE-X; yet on more than one than one occasion we have gotten alerts. The ASDE-X should also be taken out of service until that problem can be worked out.
I was training on the local control position as a CPC (Certified Professional Controller)/IT (In Training) and had just completed the briefing. Due to the extreme cross winds; we were advertising the Bridge Visual Approach to Runway 29 and ILS Approach Runway 4R; landing RWY 29 & landing RWY 4R and departing RWY 4L & departing RWY 29. This was the first time I had trained on this configuration. This operation is notoriously known for its complex and dangerous setup that arrivals converge and cross parallel runways; intersecting down at the departure end of the airport. I assumed control when Aircraft X was holding in position on RWY 4L; the previous departure was in the upwind and a runway 29 arrival was just crossing threshold. At this point we were discussing the trends of the runway 29 arrivals as they turned into the wind which were slowing them substantially and how previous departures from runway 4L were moving quickly. I had to instruct an arrival behind Aircraft Y to start his turn in towards the field as he was straying north east towards the Hudson River corridor.Now; we've determined that there was enough space to safely get Aircraft X out on his departure. As an arrival landed RWY 29 and crossed through the intersection of RWY 4L; I issued a takeoff clearance to Aircraft X and informed him about the next arrival approaching a two mile final for RWY 29. Aircraft X rolled and rotated passing taxiway 'E'. In an effort to ensure separation and allow more space I instructed Aircraft X to 'fly runway heading'; as Aircraft X climbed runway heading he unexpectedly had a gust of wind that slowed him laterally but continued to climb. Aircraft Y was short final as the ASDE-X sounded a 'Converging' Alarm. At this point my observation from the tower was that Aircraft X was clearing through the intersection of runway 29 in a nose up attitude climbing through 700 feet; pushing up with the wind. Aircraft Y continued to maintain a stable approach as he crossed threshold; safely landing runway 29. I then told Aircraft X to 'turn right heading 060 to rejoin the SID (Newark 1 Departure)' and switched him to New York Departure. The two aircraft were never in danger nor were they in an unsafe position as courses were diverging and no further action was necessary. I recommend that Newark Tower cease and desist using the Bridge Visual Approach Runway 29. The Bridge Visual Approach runway 29 has been under scrutiny for quite some time now relating to previous incidents. The Bridge Visual Approach runway 29 has unorthodox turns to final because of noise abatement and is proven to be difficult for pilots to fly. The proximity to New York City with the volume of Hudson River air traffic makes it difficult for pilots to maintain visual separation from preceding arrivals they are following while in a turn. This is resulting in compression; workload intensive traffic alerts and pattern control. Many pilots are unfamiliar with the profile of the approach and continuously make their turns either too tight onto final cutting off the preceding aircraft or they swing wide out over the Hudson River placing them near numerous helicopters/GA traffic near the Statue of Liberty. The fact that the runways intersect down the departure end leaves a vast amount of time and possibilities for issues to arise. It can be weather/wind; aircraft performance; pilot response time for takeoff roll or landing and other human factors. All of which creates the challenges that hinder the predictability when clearing a departure between two arrivals; making it very difficult to manage. I am aware of a new approach to runway 29 that is near completion. This new approach uses CRDA (Converging Runway Display Aid) and straightens out the profile making it easier to fly and gives the local controller a tool to assist them for departures. Until this new procedure is complete and we are trained on it properly; Newark Tower should not continue the use of the Bridge Visual Approach RWY 29.I also recommend that prior coordination between Newark Tower and the New York TRACON to space out each arrival enough to depart off runway 4L without difficulty. Anytime this configuration is utilized there should be a Ground Delay Program/Ground Stop or an AAR [Airport Arrival Rate] set for EWR Airport to safely ensure we do not receive more arrivals than what can safely be handled. It is very common that the New York TRACON final vector into EWR crams arrivals together so closely not considering types or speeds and switches them over for the tower to fix. When this happens the local controller now is burdened to control the final to ensure there will be prescribed separation and there is usually an unnecessarily larger gap on the final in spots.
EWR Tower Instructor and Developmental report of a squeeze play attributed to NY TRACON not providing enough spacing for the configuration they were in. Aircraft departs and slows due to a headwind and the ASDE-X display goes into alert with an aircraft on final to another runway. Controllers complain about the Bridge Visual and its poor procedure.