RPTR SUGGESTS USING RWY 27L AT PHL FOR LNDGS AND RWY 27R FOR DEPTS MIGHT REDUCE RWY INCURSIONS.

Narrative

PHL TFC FLOW IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO SAFETY. THE ARRIVALS SHOULD NOT LAND RWY 27R; BUT RWY 27L WHEN IN A W FLOW. THIS WOULD ALLOW TAXI IN ON TXWY Y WIHTOUT XING AN ACTIVE RWY. DEPS SHOULD UTILIZE RWY 27R AND WOULD ALSO NOT CROSS AN ACTIVE RWY (IN W OP). THE CURRENT FLOW OF TFC LANDS RWY 27R AND DEPARTS RWY 27L. THIS FLIES IN THE FACE OF LOGIC AS IT PRESENTS OPPORTUNITY FOR RWY INCURSION FOR ALL DEPS AND MOST ARRIVALS. THIS MAY BE AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE FOR SOME FOLKS; BUT SAFETY SHOULD BE THE DRIVING FACTOR IN MAKING THIS CHANGE. AN ADDED BENEFIT WOULD BE IMPROVED FLOW AROUND THE TERMINAL AREA BECAUSE CURRENTLY; DEPARTING ACFT HOLD FOR XING AN ACTIVE RWY 27R AND BLOCK K AND J TXWYS. THIS PREVENTS MOVEMENT ON THE GND WHILE ACFT LAND RWY 27R IN PHL. ONCE AGAIN; DEPART RWY 27R; TAXI UNIMPEDED BY LNDG TFC; NO RWY INCURSION THREAT DURING W ONLY OPERATIONAL FLOW. ARRIVE RWY 27L; AND TAXI INBOUND TXWY Y TO MAIN TERMINAL IN NEARLY A ONE WAY FLOW. TXWYS K; J ARE NOW FREE FOR BI-DIRECTIONAL USE; AND THE RAMP IS NOT BLOCKED BY TFC WAITING TO CROSS AN ACTIVE RWY. I SUSPECT THIS CHANGE WOULD ALSO IMPROVE THE FLOW OF TFC IN THE TERMINAL AREA; BUT SAFETY ON THE RWY IS PARAMOUNT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES HE FLIES INTO AND OUT OF PHL OFTEN. HE SAID DURING BUSY PERIODS TFC QUICKLY GETS BUNCHED UP WAITING; ONE AT A TIME TO CROSS A RWY. HE THINKS THE TFC FLOW WOULD BE IMPROVED WITH ARRIVALS USING RWY 27L AND DEPS TAXIING TO RWY 27R. IT COULD REDUCE THE CHANCES FOR A RWY INCURSION AND IMPROVE SAFETY.