Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working local; receiving the 27R and 35 arrivals. I spoke to Air Carrier Y first; for 27R; and saw that he was overtaking the ghost target for the 35 traffic that was to land ahead of him. I told him to slow to final approach speed. The 35 arrival he was tight with was Air Carrier X. Given the similar call signs and how tight they were; initially looked like a tie at the intersection. I gave Air Carrier Y the speech; it was tight; company with similar call sign was landing 35; if it didn't work; and he would be the one to go around. I talked to Air Carrier X on about a 3 mile final for 35 and gave him the same speech; tight; similar call sign; you are the one to land; and he will go. It ended up working out because Air Carrier Y slowed a lot. This one is a problem on several levels. The problem with the 27R/35 arrivals is that the worst scenario for us is a double go-around. With both aircraft nose up and poor visibility; the tie at the intersection becomes a tie in the air. This particular situation was compounded by the ridiculously similar call signs. If I had not prepped both these pilots; I think it quite likely that I send one; and both aircraft go around. As it was; I was very happy that I didn't have to send either; and considered saying 'Air Carrier for 27R; go around;' rather than saying the call sign. The entire session was full of tight ones; there was a headwind today; which we seem to have a problem with. Recommendation; the similar call signs couldn't have been prevented as one was a diversion; but I do think that the final and OOD controllers should not have put these two so close; pick a different ghost to put Air Carrier X on! We struggle as a facility with the OOD position. Some are better than others; but nothing is ever really done to improve those who are poor at working this position. There are also those who just say; 'oh well; tower will work it out;' and switch them. We also do worse with a northwest wind (headwind for 35) because it's much more common that we work with a west or southwest wind; where the 35 arrival is always catching the ghost. The replays that the supervisors do are a joke; because the supervisors themselves don't do the research to figure out what went wrong. Preventable? Certainly; with better training; perhaps more spacing for 27R; improving those who aren't good at OOD; yes; we could prevent a lot of those go-arounds.




Synopsis: PHL Controller described a potential go-around event during a Runway 27R/35 arrival operation utilizing Converging Runway Display Aid (CARDA) 'ghost target' procedures; the Controller listing various controller technique/s as problematic.