FLC OF ATR72 RECLRED FOR VISUAL CIRCLE TO LAND APCH AT EWR INITIATES GAR AS CONFLICT ACFT CONTINUES FOR INTERSECTING RWY. BOTH ACFT GO AROUND.

Narrative

I WAS THE CAPT OF ACR ATR72 SVC FROM ROC TO EWR. THE FO WAS THE PF ON THIS LEG AND I WAS THE PNF. ON ARR; ATC CLRED OUR FLT FOR THE ILS RWY 22L APCH TO EWR. WX AT EWR WAS VFR (GENERALLY CLR) AND WINDS AT THE SURFACE WERE FROM THE NW AT APPROX 15 KTS. A GULFSTREAM WAS WELL AHEAD OF US ON THE APCH AND WAS CIRCLING TO RWY 29 AT THE TIME APCH CTL SWITCHED US TO TWR FREQ. WHEN I FIRST CHKED IN WITH EWR TWR WE RECEIVED CLRNC TO LAND ON RWY 22L. WE WERE #1 FOR LNDG AFTER THE GULFSTREAM. AS OUR FLT CROSSED THE OM ON THE APCH TO RWY 22L; TWR OFFERED US A CIRCLE TO RWY 29. MY EVALUATION OF THE SIT WAS THAT EITHER RWY AT THIS POINT WAS SUITABLE FOR LNDG: WINDS FAVORED RWY 29 AND THIS APCH IS OFFERED TO OUR COMPANY ACFT ROUTINELY. SINCE THE FO WAS THE PF; I ASKED HIM FOR HIS PREFERENCE. HE PREFERRED LNDG ON RWY 29 AND I EXPLAINED TO TWR THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT A CIRCLE TO RWY 29. THE FO BEGAN THE CIRCLE MANEUVER AT APPROX 1100 FT MSL AND CIRCLED TO THE E TO ESTABLISH OUR ACFT ON FINAL FOR RWY 29. THE AIRPLANE WAS IN THE LNDG CONFIGN AT THE TIME WE BEGAN THE CIRCLE AND WE COMPLETED THE LNDG CHKLIST DURING THE FIRST FEW MOMENTS OF THE MANEUVER. WHEN WE ROLLED ONTO FINAL (550- 600 FT MSL) WE NOTICED AN ACR B737 ON ITS STRAIGHT-IN APCH TO RWY 22L AND IT BECAME CLR TO US AS A CREW THAT SPACING WAS NOT ADEQUATE. A QUICK REVIEW OF EWR ARPT SHOWS THAT THE THRESHOLDS FOR RWY 22L AND RWY 29 ARE POSITIONED IN SUCH A WAY THAT 2 ACFT CANNOT LAND AT THE SAME TIME ON THE RESPECTIVE RWYS WITHOUT COLLIDING -- AN INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE AS WE VIEWED THE DEVELOPING SIT. AT THE SAME TIME WE RECOGNIZED THE PROB; THE ACR B737 STATED OVER THE FREQ; 'THIS ISN'T GOING TO WORK; IS IT?' THE EWR TWR IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED; 'IT'LL WORK.' SINCE ACR B737 DID NOT USE THEIR CALL SIGN WHEN MAKING THE XMISSION; IT WAS PROBABLY UNCLR TO TWR WHICH ACFT MADE THE COMMENT. I WAS STUNNED AT THE TWR'S RESPONSE; WHICH LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT PERHAPS THEY HAD A PERSPECTIVE THAT I DID NOT HAVE AND THAT OUR SPACING WAS ADEQUATE. THE STUN FACTOR LED US AS A CREW TO CONTINUE THE APCH FOR ANOTHER 5 SECONDS; AFTER WHICH WE CLRLY REALIZED THAT IF WE CONTINUED; BOTH ACFT WOULD COLLIDE XING THEIR RESPECTIVE THRESHOLDS. EVEN THOUGH WE WERE TECHNICALLY #1 FOR LNDG; WE ELECTED TO GO AROUND SINCE IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT THE ACR B737 WAS GOING TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO DO SO. WE BEGAN THE GAR AT ABOUT 400 FT MSL. THROUGH 700 FT MSL WE BOTH LOOKED RIGHT AT AND SAW THE ACR B737 EXECUTING THEIR GAR. THE FO DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF MAKING A VERY PROMPT BUT SMOOTH L TURN TO AVOID CONFLICTING FLT PATHS AND THE ACR JET TURNED R FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. OUR ACFT WAS ON AN APPROX HDG OF 220 DEGS CLBING THROUGH 1200-1300 FT BEFORE TWR INTERVENED WITH ANY INSTRUCTIONS. WE WERE THEN TOLD TO MAINTAIN 2000 FT; HDG OF 190 DEGS AND CONTACT DEP. WE DO NOT RECALL TWR MAKING ANY COMMENTS TO EITHER ACFT AS WE 'SELF-CTLED' OUR RESPECTIVE GARS. I MADE A PA TO THE PAX EXPLAINING THAT WE ELECTED TO GO AROUND SINCE SPACING ON THE APCH WAS INADEQUATE AND THAT WE WOULD BE LNDG IN ABOUT 15 MINS. I ALSO SPOKE WITH THE FLT ATTENDANTS TO ASCERTAIN IF ANY PAX APPEARED NOTICEABLY STARTLED AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT NONE WERE. WE TOUCHED DOWN IN EWR APPROX 15 MINS LATER ON RWY 22L. WE DEBRIEFED THE EVENT AS A CREW AFTER PARKING AT THE GATE AND SECURING THE AIRPLANE. MY FO AND I BELIEVED THAT WE HANDLED THE SIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR COMPANY'S SOP'S; AND WE AGREED ON THE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THIS EVENT. LIKE MYSELF; THE FO WAS STUNNED AT THE CTLR'S RESPONSE THAT 'IT'LL WORK.' IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT 2 EXPERIENCED FLCS RECOGNIZED THAT SPACING WAS INADEQUATE BUT WERE IMPLICITLY ASKED TO RE-EVALUATE A SIT BY A DISMISSIVE RESPONSE FROM THE TWR. IN REVIEWING THE POS OF THE 2 AIRPLANES ON APCH; WE ALSO CONCLUDED THE FOLLOWING: AS WE TURNED FINAL FOR RWY 29; IT WAS OUR FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO VISUALLY OBSERVE THE ACR B737. WE WERE NOT UNAWARE THAT THIS ACFT WAS FOLLOWING US ON THE APCH; BUT DID NOT CONSIDER ITS POS TO BE A FACTOR SINCE WE WERE NOT ASSIGNED A 'SHORT APCH' BY TWR OR ASKED TO 'WIDEN OUT' OUR PATTERN. AGAIN; THE FO DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF FLYING A PRECISE CIRCLE MANEUVER TO RWY 29. OUR FIRST GLANCE AT THE B737 REVEALED THAT WE WERE AT A SLIGHTLY LOWER ALT THAN IT WAS. HOWEVER; AT THE TIME WE EXECUTED OUR GAR; THE B737 WAS SLIGHTLY BELOW OUR ALT; INDICATING THAT ITS SPD ON THE APCH WAS HIGHER THAN OURS WAS. WINDS ALOFT WERE VERY STRONG OUT OF THE NW AND THIS PROVIDED A QUARTERING TAILWIND ON THE APCH FOR STRAIGHT-IN TFC TO RWY 22L. WHEN OUR ACFT TURNED FINAL FOR RWY 29; OUR GND SPD DECREASED AT LEAST 15 KTS SINCE WE WERE NOW POSITIONED TO LAND INTO THE WIND. THESE FACTORS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TWR CTLR'S ASSESSMENT OF THE SIT; NOR WERE THEY FULLY APPRECIATED BY THE B737 CREW SINCE THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE OUR POS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE APCH AND MAKE AN EARLY DECISION ON THE FEASIBILITY OF CONTINUING THE APCH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR'S COMMENTS ARE QUITE CONSISTENT WITH THE NARRATIVE. HE STATES THAT WITHIN A FEW MINS AFTER LNDG; HE WENT TO CHIEF PLT OFFICE AND THAT THE CHIEF PLT ALREADY KNEW OF THE SIT. THE ACR FLC HAD CALLED BOTH THE TWR FACILITY AND THE RPTR COMPANY TO DISCUSS THE TWR OPERATOR'S TECHNIQUE OF CTLING AND RADIO COM. THE EVIDENT RESULT WAS THAT THE TWR CTLR WAS RELIEVED OF DUTY AT THAT TIME AND PROBABLY RECEIVED SOME DEGREE OF TRAINING IN HIS DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THE RPTR STATES THAT A CIRCLE TO LAND RWY 29 FROM A RWY 22 APCH IS A COMMON PRACTICE AND THAT HE CONTINUES TO ACCEPT SUCH A CLRNC WITHOUT THE ABOVE MENTIONED DIFFICULTIES. HE ALSO STATES THAT HE FILLED OUT A COMPANY IRREGULARITY RPT AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.