Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 16.6
Troubleshooting; Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Airspace Structure
I was working CIC when Aircraft X declared they were going around from a visual approach on a 2 1/2 mile final for BUR runway 8 due to altitude. Aircraft Y had just departed BUR runway 15 and was climbing to the southwest just off of the departure end. The local controller asked Aircraft X if they could accept a circle to runway 15 and they said they could. Aircraft X began a climb and circle northwest of BUR for runway 15. 1 mile northwest of BUR at approximately 3000 feet MSL Aircraft X declared they could not make it and would like to be re-sequenced for another approach. The local controller told Aircraft X to climb to 4000 feet and fly suggested heading of 270 as we have no procedure for this scenario and had not yet received instructions from SoCal TRACON. During this time I was coordinating with WHP ATCT as Aircraft X could enter their airspace and received approval. I then began to coordinate with SoCal Valley Sector for instructions to give to Aircraft X. Aircraft X was continuing to climb into SoCal Woodland sector airspace and as I was on the line with Valley sector he coordinated with Woodland sector for the re-sequence. Valley sector then advised me to give Aircraft X to Woodland sector and I coordinated that with the local controller who handed off and switched Aircraft X to Woodland sector. There was apparently a miscommunication as Woodland sector thought that Aircraft X was going to stay in the pattern at BUR and be re-sequenced by BUR.There is no set procedure for go-arounds at BUR. Aircraft on an instrument approach are supposed to be given the published missed approach which puts them head on with any arrivals behind them. BUR is supposed to get climb out instructions from SOCAL TRACON for these situations and they too have restrictions. Previous procedures for these situations were deemed unusable due to non-current mapping of the area. Visual approaches to BUR that go-around are expected to be kept in the pattern by BUR and re-sequenced by us; or coordinated with SoCal for instructions if this is not a practical solution if the pilot states they are unable. The above situation was unique in the fact that the aircraft was northwest of BUR in a turn to the west-northwest when they requested the re-sequence. Not having the ability to vector this aircraft due to the new restrictions; and not having yet received instructions from SoCal leaves a major issue with what we can do with the aircraft; hence the suggested heading given by the local controller. BUR needs to have the ability returned to vector go-arounds to the previous headings (the SID heading) and previous altitude (the climb via except maintain altitude). This lack of procedure has caused several issues at BUR and needs to be addressed.
Aircraft X was on final for runway 8; about five miles out. They advised that they needed S-turns for descent; which I approved. I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff with Aircraft X on about a 3 and 1/2 mile final. Aircraft Y was on departure roll about 3000 feet down runway 15 when Aircraft X advised that they couldn't make the runway. I asked Aircraft X if they could accept a circling approach to runway 15; to avoid a wake turbulence issue with Aircraft Y; they responded in the affirmative. I then shipped Aircraft Y to departure. Aircraft X advised that the circling maneuver was not going to work for them; and at this point they were northbound north of the airport. They requested vectors back for the approach. The Controller-in-charge began coordinating with SoCal approach; specifically Valley sector; who handles the missed approaches. I was able to get on the line to hear some of the coordination; and heard the Valley controller say 'Give him to Woodland'; the other corresponding sector; I climbed Aircraft X to 4000 feet because they were already climbing on their own; and then suggested a 270 heading. Woodland then called and wanted to know what was going on with Aircraft X. I advised that Aircraft X wanted vectors back for the approach and she was climbing to 4000 feet on a suggested heading of 270. Woodland then got off the land line.I recommend that we have more options as the tower for missed approaches for runway 8; runway 15; and circling maneuvers to 15. Additionally; the statement by the SoCal Valley controller left me under the impression that the Woodland sector wanted to the aircraft as soon as possible; when from what I could gather after the event; something completely different was coordinated by Valley. Without the ability to vector an missed approach that was a visual; or an altitude that could keep them safe; I was left with no other option except to coordinate with SoCal; who from what I could gather did not want to deal with the missed approach. As a controller I don't know what options can be given because the SoCal controllers expect us at Burbank to keep the missed approaches in the pattern. This is not a viable system; and needs to be looked into.
BUR Tower controllers report of a go-around that cannot be kept in the traffic pattern at the airport and is handed off to approach for sequencing.