Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Confusion; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Approach; Departure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X landed Runway 35 and had a bird strike while rolling out near Taxiway H; well clear of the Runway 27R intersection. This closed both Runway 35 and Runway 27R with several aircraft on final to both runways. This caused a double go-around for Runway 27R and Runway 35 with two aircraft. Due to the emergency situation; the PHL Tower Local East Controller applied visual separation during the double go-around and exchanged traffic. Closest proximity of aircraft was .18 [nm] and 900 feet. It appeared from the falcon replay that the aircraft did not overfly each other. I was performing FLM Tower functions at the time of this incident. As per PHL procedure when FOD is reported on a runway surface the runway is closed for take-off and landing as well as all intersecting runway surfaces. This specific procedure caused an unsafe operation to occur. The controller working both aircraft was busy with successive arrivals and the potential for operational errors rose drastically. The procedure of closing runway surfaces for FOD needs to be amended to allow aircraft to land on runways that FOD has not been reported. Just because FOD is reported on Runway 35 north of the intersection with Runway 27R should not mean that Runway 27R is closed.


Second narrative: I was working the Woodstown (W) sector when I witnessed the following:Aircraft Z had been sent around by Local East due to FOD on Runway 35. After barely missing Aircraft Y that had been sent around from the crossing runway at the same time (see my previous report); Aircraft Z was apparently being vectored by Local East towards Final's airspace for re-sequence to Runway 26. While scanning my traffic and the traffic of nearby sectors; I noticed Aircraft Z was southeast-bound at 3;000 feet. Aircraft A was on approach to Runway 26; at 3;000 feet; converging with Aircraft Z. I leaned over and alerted the Final Controller; who was now noticing the problem on his own. He stated that he is not talking to either aircraft. I shouted out to the room to see who was talking to Aircraft Z; while the Tower Controller called Local East to see if they were talking to either aircraft. Turns out Local East was talking to both. LCE turned Aircraft Z left; to the northeast; and narrowly missed Aircraft A. I don't know how close they got; but it was close.Local East should have handed off the go-around (Aircraft Z) to North Departure for re-sequence.


Synopsis: PHL Tower and TRACON Controllers' report of a procedure where if FOD is reported on a runway the other crossing runway is closed until the FOD is removed. In this instance two aircraft were cleared to land on converging runways and sent around causing a NMAC.