Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EUG.TRACON, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D EUG
ATC / advisory: TRACON EUG
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on approach talking to Tower. Tower called requesting control of Aircraft X so he could clear him for the visual approach. Aircraft X was cleared for the visual approach. Aircraft Y was several miles behind Aircraft X and reported the runway in sight; and was cleared for the visual approach. The spacing looked good so Aircraft Y was then shipped to Tower. Tower called moments later to inform me that both aircraft were going around due to wind shear and they were now requesting the opposite direction runway. I believe my mistake in this moment was that as a Radar Controller; I should have given Tower altitudes and headings to give to both aircraft before shipping them to me. At the very least; I should have inquired about what both aircraft would be doing when they came to me. Aircraft X checked in first requesting an ILS approach. He was in a climb through 3;800 feet in a 3;300 feet minimum vectoring altitude (MVA) and appeared to be runway heading so I assumed he had missed approach instructions. Shortly after; he leveled off at 4;000 feet. When I saw this; I immediately issued a climb to 7;000 feet but by then he entered a 4;200 foot MVA at 4;000 feet. Additionally; his response was asking me for a heading. I vectored him out for an ILS approach. Aircraft Y checked on at 3;800 feet in a 5;000 feet MVA. I did not issue him a climb or heading. I asked if he still had the runway in sight and wanted to do a visual approach. He said yes to both questions so I cleared him for the visual approach and shipped him to Tower. The Tower could have kept both aircraft on their frequency and worked them in the pattern since both aircraft have the runway in sight. He could have just changed them to the opposite direction runway. If that was not an option; then I should have given altitudes and headings for him to give the aircraft prior to them being returned to my frequency. We need standard missed approach instructions for visual approaches at for both runways.




Synopsis: A TRACON Departure Controller reported two aircraft called him executing missed approaches due to windshear and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude due to lack of coordination and no established procedure.