MSP TWR CTLR VOICED CONCERN REGARDING RWY 35 GAR PROCS THAT MAY CONFLICT WITH RWY 30L/R DEPS AND LCL DEFINITION OF WINDSHEAR EVENTS.

Narrative

OUR NEW RWY 35 ADDS CAPACITY TO THE ARPT; BUT IF AN ACFT EXECUTES A GAR ON RWY 35 (BALKED LNDG) IT COULD BE A VERY BIG CONFLICT WITH A DEP OFF RWY 30R OR EVEN MORE SO OFF RWY 30L. BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION; MSP TWR ORDERS REQUIRE US TO DISCONTINUE RWY 35 ARRS IF THERE IS ANY WINDSHEAR RPTED ON FINAL TO RWY 35 TO AVOID THE POTENTIALLY UNSAFE SITUATION OF A GAR ON RWY 35 AND TFC DEPARTING RWY 30L OR RWY 30R. RECENTLY; ACR X HAS DECIDED TO REDEFINE WINDSHEAR AS ANY GAIN OR LOSS OF 15 KTS OR MORE. THEY HAVE BRIEFED THEIR PLTS TO CALL A GAIN OR LOSS OF AIRSPD LESS THAN 15 KTS AS 'SPD FLUCTUATIONS.' THIS WAY; MSP CAN KEEP LNDG RWY 35 CAUSING LESS DELAYS TO ACR X. WE; AS CTLRS; HAVE BEEN TOLD BY SUPVRS THAT IF THE PLT DOESN'T USE THE WORD 'WINDSHEAR' OR IT DOESN'T EXCEED 15 KTS CHANGE OF AIRSPD; THAT RWY 35 ARRS WILL KEEP COMING AND THAT 'ACR X CAME UP WITH THIS AND HAS AGREED TO IT.' IT SEEMS THAT ACR X AND FAA MGMNT HAVE DECIDED TO COMPROMISE SAFETY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING DELAYS INTO MSP ARPT. I THINK THERE IS A VERY VALID SAFETY CONCERN WHEN MSP TWR HAS AGREED NOT TO LAND RWY 35 WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE OF WINDSHEAR ON FINAL APCH TO RWY 35; AND THEN MSP TWR ALONG WITH ACR X DECIDES TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN DEFINITIONS OF WINDSHEAR SO THAT MSP CAN KEEP ARRS COMING TO RWY 35 WHILE COMPROMISING THE VERY SAFETY THEY WERE TRYING TO ENSURE WHEN THEY MADE THE PROC TO DISCONTINUE RWY 35 ARRS AS SOON AS WINDSHEAR IS DETECTED ON FINAL TO RWY 35. SOMETHING IS VERY UNSAFE ABOUT THIS NEW TWIST ON THE DEFINITION OF WINDSHEAR JUST TO AVOID DELAYS TO ACR X IN THE NAME OF MAKING MORE MONEY.