AN ACR MLG AND AN SMA HAD A CONFLICT IN THE XING RWY TFC LNDG PATTERN AT PHL.

Narrative

I WAS THE CAPT OF ACR MLG YYZ-PHL ON FEB/FRI/93. ABOUT 12 MI OUT WE WERE CLRED FOR THE ILS 27R APCH. WINDS WERE FROM THE NW AT ABOUT 12-16 KTS. SIMULTANEOUS APCHS WERE BEING CONDUCTED TO RWY 27R AND RWY 35 (HOWEVER; I DID NOT KNOW THIS SINCE THE FO LISTENED TO THE ATIS; EVEN IF I HAD KNOWN; I DOUBT IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE). WE WERE FOLLOWING ANOTHER MLG WHICH WE HAD VISUALLY ABOUT 4 MI IN FRONT OF US. APCH WAS NORMAL UNTIL WE WERE ABOUT 150 FT AGL WHEN TWR ISSUED A GAR. THE CALL SIGN WAS BLOCKED; STEPPED ON; WHATEVER. I THOUGHT WE WERE THE ONLY ACFT APCHING THE ARPT AT THIS TIME AND; THEREFORE; THE ONLY ACFT IN POS TO BE ISSUED A GAR. HOWEVER; SINCE I SAW THAT THE PRECEDING ACFT HAD LANDED AND WAS WELL CLR OF RWY 27R; THERE WAS NO APPARENT REASON TO GAR. SINCE WE DID NOT HEAR THE CALL SIGN; I LOOKED OVER AT THE FO AND ASKED HIM 'WHO WAS THAT FOR?' AS I LOOKED BACK TO THE RWY; I HEARD TWR AGAIN ISSUE A GAR FOR A CALL SIGN I DID NOT RECOGNIZE. ALSO; ABOUT THE SAME TIME; I SAW A BLUE AND WHITE SINGLE ENG ACFT SLIGHTLY R OF US AND A FEW HUNDRED FT ABOVE US; APPARENTLY ON THE GO FROM AN APCH TO RWY 35. THIS ACFT THEN RESPONDED ON THE RADIO; BUT EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID; I DO NOT KNOW. I CONTINUED OUR APCH AND LANDED. IF WE HAD DECIDED TO GAR AT THE FIRST MENTION OF GAR; WE MAY HAVE COME VERY CLOSE TO THIS ACFT; SINCE NEITHER I NOR THE FO SAW THIS ACFT UNTIL WE WERE ABOUT 100 FT AGL; NOR WERE WE EVEN AWARE THERE WAS ANOTHER ACFT ON APCH TO RWY 35 SINCE TWR NEVER ADVISED US (OR IF THEY DID; WE NEVER HEARD OR ACKNOWLEDGED IT). AFTER WE LANDED; I CALLED THE TWR SUPVR; MR X. I TOLD HIM: WE NEVER KNEW THERE WAS ANOTHER ACFT APCHING RWY 35. AT THE FIRST CALL FOR A GAR; THERE WAS CONFUSION; SINCE THE CALL SIGN WAS STEPPED ON; BLOCKED; WHATEVER. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE BY ANYONE ON THE RADIO TO THE FIRST GAR ISSUED; AND THERE WAS A 5-6 SECOND DELAY BEFORE ANOTHER GAR WAS XMITTED. WE TALKED QUITE A BIT ABOUT RWY 35/27 OPS AND ALL THE PROBS AND VARIABLES INVOLVED. MR X SAID THE OTHER PLT TALKED TO HIM ON THE PHONE ALSO; AND SAID HE HAD ENG PROBS. 2 POINTS I WANT TO MAKE: 1) TWR SHOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED THE SIT TO DEVELOP IN THE FIRST PLACE (MR X SAID THE FIRST GAR WAS ISSUED WHILE THE GUY WAS STILL OVER THE RIVER. THAT MAY BE TRUE; BUT THE FIRST ONE WE HEARD PUT HIM A LOT CLOSER TO RWY 27). 2) DURING SIMULTANEOUS INTERSECTING APCHS; THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE BETTER SEPARATION AND GIVE THEMSELVES SOME SLOP (MARGIN OF ERROR) TO ALLOW FOR THE REAL WORLD AND ALL TFC INVOLVED HAS TO BE INFORMED. MR X ACTED LIKE 'WELL; THESE THINGS HAPPEN.' I AGREE; BUT WHAT ARE THEY DOING TO IMPROVE THE OP AND PREVENT A RECURRENCE? MY FO HAS FLOWN THIS TRIP A LOT AND HE SAID HE HAD TO GAR TWICE THIS MONTH IN PHL FOR POOR SEQUENCING OF RWY 35 TFC. I THINK THIS OP COULD USE SOME MORE STUDY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTING CAPT STATES THAT RWY 35 AND 27R ARE ONLY USED WHEN THERE IS A HIGH WIND SIT WITH WINDS OUT OF THE NW. BOTH THE CAPT AND THE FO CALLED THE TWR REGARDING THIS INCIDENT AND WERE IMPRESSED WITH HOW CASUAL THE TWR SUPVR WAS ABOUT THE INCIDENT. THEY GOT NO SATISFACTION AT ALL FROM THE SUPVR. THE FO IS RPTED TO HAVE HAD THIS A SIMILAR INCIDENT TWICE IN 1 MONTH; IMPROPER SEPARATION OF ACFT LNDG ON THE XING RWYS.