Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Traffic Management
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The winds at SLC were light out of the south before I went on break and projected to be a north wind the rest of the day. I came back early from break and the wind had picked up to sustained speeds above 10 knots. I received a very quick briefing and began looking into the wind situation. At the time there was an aircraft on final that was very concerned with the winds. The pilot stated that 11 was the maximum tailwind they could accept or they had to go around. I monitored and the aircraft landed. This was because the wind was issued at the Final Approach Fix on initial check-in with the tower at 11 knots.However; their landing restrictions/minimums apply at the runway; and then the wind was 12 knots; but not issued. I called the tower and made a comment about how lucky it was that they landed and said that we should go south flow. The Tower Traffic Management Coordinator stated that they will call the weather and call me back. While waiting; another controller coordinated with me about how the aircraft were wanting to land south with the winds; I told him that we were going south and that I would coordinate. I yelled out that we were going south. I called the Tower and told them we need to go south and asked what the last north departure was going to be. The Supervisor in the TRACON was on the line and I was excused from the conversation.From pilot briefings a go-around is treated as an emergency by the flight crew because it adds complexity and more work. From this reasoning; and from the winds; I was not willing to place another aircraft in a situation that was on the border of their limits. The Supervisor came back to the Traffic Management area and yelled at me about going south and told me that it was not my call and that I couldn't just 'go and do that'. I told him that there was no need to yell at me; and as he was walking away I told him that he had flow.At this point my duty as a Flow controller was taken from me because the Supervisor told the controller to change the aircraft back to a North flow and re-sequence them into the downwind. I forwarded the TMU (Traffic Management Unit) position back to the Supervisor and left the room. Another controller; who was standing next to me at the TMU position; came out to talk and told me that I was still being shown on break at 36 minutes. (When I returned early from my break the Supervisor never moved me over to show me on position.) I then put away my study material; went to the rest room; and re-entered the control room a few minutes later. That is when I was asked to leave the control room and wait to find out what was going to happen to me.Why are aircraft being placed into an unsafe situation? At KSLC; we are constantly placing these aircraft into a tailwind situation because the SLC Tower does not wish to change from a North flow configuration. The benefit of this configuration has first been the re-issuance of clearances to all of the aircraft that were went through the PDC. The other issue is that the 'special de-ice' program that they were in required the aircraft to depart within 10 minutes. This procedure has never before been brought up as a reason to stay in a North flow configuration. The SLC tower needs to adhere to the stipulations of the FAAH 7110.65 for runway in use.


Second narrative: Aircraft X was a go around. I had descended Aircraft X to 6000 feet then after readback I descended the trailing aircraft from 10000 feet to 8000 feet. I had 1300 feet of vertical separation and the trailing aircraft caught up to Aircraft X. That was 1 hit on the replay of 900 feet and then the next hit was back at 1000 feet vertical separation. I thought with a normal descent rate; the second aircraft would not catch him. Overall; I think I need to relax and not give up the vertical separation until I know I have it as opposed to I 'think' I have it.


Synopsis: S56 TRACON Traffic Management Coordinator reported a decision to change runways was overridden by the Supervisor. The Final Controller reported a loss of separation on final due to the strong winds.