Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 4.5
Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Procedure
Aircraft X; was on approach to RWY 1R. A departure; Aircraft Y; was cleared for takeoff. It was a squeeze; but appropriate runway separation existed. Aircraft X chooses to go-around on his own without telling me. When I witnessed Aircraft X climbing; I said 'go-around'; issued an altitude to maintain and a heading to fly. I then turned the departure on a diverging heading; and coordinated with departure.  Controller error or procedures were not the cause of this go-around. The pilot initiated the go-around on his own; despite appropriate separation existing prior to the aircraft crossing the runway threshold.
This is a known event originally logged by the TWR FLM; turbojet go-around within mile of the runway. Weather was VMC. North Op. ILS/VA's being conducted simultaneously to 1R/1C/1L; departing 1R/30. Since departure traffic was building at 1R; normally the FLM/CIC would stop advertising arrivals to Runway 01R (RY1R); but this did not happen. The TWR FLM did coordinate with TRACON FLM and; later the OM; to not bring any more arrivals to 1R; but this was after Aircraft X was already set up. There also was some dialog between the two FLMs over how the 1C glideslope (GS) being OTS would affect arrivals. With VMC conditions; there should have been no question that 1C was acceptable for arrivals even though the GS component was OTS. The TRACON FLM should not have exerted pressure on the TWR FLM to maintain the status quo in accepting arrivals to 1R. Tension between PCT and IAD is not desirable. This conversation (in skip) is attached.Aircraft X checked in with Local Control1 (LC1) on final to RY1R. LC1 advised of traffic to depart prior to his arrival; issued wind calm; and cleared him to land. LC1 then launched a [heavy air carrier]; and placed Aircraft Y; into LUAW; advising him of Aircraft X on 6-mile final. This squeeze play was going to be close since LC1 had to wait for wake turbulence separation behind the [first departing heavy] before clearing Aircraft Y for takeoff. Plus it was 79 degrees F which was warmer than it had been and caused Aircraft Y to use a lot of runway prior to lift off. LC1 did not try to slow Aircraft X.As Aircraft X approached short final; altitude readouts indicated that he had slowed his descent and was executing a missed approach. Noticing that Aircraft X appeared to be rejecting the landing; LC1 issued a go-around. However; this occurred after Aircraft X crossed the threshold and before Aircraft Y lifted off the runway. There was no ASDE-X alert.As the QA analysis states in the MOR - - there was no loss of separation since Aircraft X was in the process of going around prior to the threshold. Otherwise; this probably would have been a risk analysis event and a runway incursion. This squeeze play was not really necessary. IAD was not running delays and Aircraft Y did not have a release time to meet. LC1 should have just waited until Aircraft X landed before launching Aircraft Y. This controller has not had RTF type training.Please review the attached Camtasia video.1. IPM for the LC1 controller.2. Skill enhancement training in the tower simulator.3. Most important - - RTF type training for local controllers at towers with radar/Class B airspace.4. IPM for the FLM for not changing the ATIS to reflect no arrivals to 1R when the departure mode started.
IAD Specialist reports of a go-around caused by the Local Controller expediting traffic when not necessary.