Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 12.5
Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Procedure
Approach Control had two aircraft inbound to PNS both were northwest of the airport. Runway 17 was active. The front aircraft; Aircraft X was ahead of Aircraft Y. Aircraft Y had an overtaking speed of 110+KTS. Approach called traffic to the aircraft. My recollection is that Aircraft X said he had Aircraft Y in sight when they were a mile or less apart with Aircraft Y still slightly behind. The Controller told the VFR Aircraft; X ;to maintain visual separation and maneuver to follow Aircraft Y. Both aircraft were on practically the same flight path east bound for a right base to Runway 17 at practically the same altitude. Aircraft Y told the Approach Controller Aircraft X was in sight as he was nearly on top of or through him. At which point Approach switched both aircraft to me in the Tower. (The Aircraft Y pilot told me on the phone that he only saw Aircraft X for a moment and then lost him as he started to turn final and then again a brief flash of him as he got the RA). Aircraft Y; on initial contact; told me he had gotten a TCAS RA; and was inbound for landing 17. I cleared him to land. I told the Approach Controller that Aircraft Y had gotten an RA. I had no role in this. The aircraft had come out the other side by the time I talked to either one. I was our facility's recurrent training facilitator for the first two years. I have attended this years training. We just recently were in on a safety webinar that dealt with IFR and VFR separation and controller responsibilities. We have a problem here in Pensacola with our safety culture when it comes to VFR aircraft. Almost daily Approach will have a much faster IFR running over a much slower VFR aircraft. Usually closer in and the Tower is left to work it out. When we complain about the sequence or lack there of we are told 'He's VFR.' As if that will keep the faster aircraft from hitting him on final or give us our runway separation. I watched the Falcon 3 replay of this today. At one point these two aircraft were .12 miles laterally separated and 000 feet vertical. The next update was .08 lateral and 001 vertical.I am not sure what I would recommend other than to not point faster aircraft right at slower aircraft just because they are VFR. Our safety culture has to change here. The Tower has to deal with this daily. Often several times a day. We will have aircraft on final with 60; 70; 80; to 100 [knot] over takes on preceding aircraft. We will tell them they are number two to follow. Often their reply is 'we don't have the preceding traffic.' I have had to adjust speeds; give S turns; take aircraft across final to make approaches sequence work. Even though our LOA says the tower shall not do anything to affect approaches sequence. It doesn't say what to do if Approach gives no sequence. I am hoping that as I have told folks in recurrent training that this report will have a positive impact for change in our safety culture here in Pensacola.
PNS Tower Controller describes ongoing situation where Approach Control does not separate or sequence correctly VFR slow traffic behind faster IFR traffic. In this report it leads to a NMAC.