Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FAT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C FAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON FAT
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I'm submitting this report in response to a Performance Record of Conference conducted by my supervisor. I was advised by my supervisor that I did not ensure Class C separation and operated in an unsafe manner. No loss of separation occurred however a Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) was filed in response to a public inquiry. I was advised to file a report but was never given official duty time to do so therefore I'm using my personal off duty time to file this report. I acknowledge my actions did play a role in the incident. I've done a self-assessment and have determined based on the current climate that I will no longer sequence aircraft from approach control that are in a position to turn base. In the future I will either sequence aircraft to the straight-in or sequence aircraft in trail on the downwind. It is also my opinion that the Supervisor did not objectively consider all the human factors that played a role in this situation and placed most of the responsibility for this incident on me. This Record of Conference was conducted in response to an incident that occurred between an IFR Aircraft X north downwind arrival sequenced by approach control and 4 [military aircraft] in the control tower's VFR right closed traffic pattern (previously sequenced by approach control).I was summoned to my Supervisor's office to receive a Performance Record of Conference regarding the above mentioned incident. I maintain that although I was understandably defensive I remained transparent; truthful and objective while discussing the events. It quickly became clear to me that the Supervisor had already concluded I did not operate in a safe manner based on verbal feedback and the defamatory information included in the Performance Record of Conference. Phrases such as 'No! You did not know what the hell you were doing!'. 'You handed the tower a confliction requiring them to take evasive action!'; 'You did not ensure Class C separation' etc. The written portion of the Performance Record of Conference I received contains subjective and false statements about my awareness; lack of control and overall poor sequencing. I would like to reference several verbal and written statements within the Performance Record of Conference that I feel were subjective; inaccurate and in some cases downright false. In the first paragraph it states I cleared Aircraft X abeam the airport. That is incorrect as I intentionally withheld the clearance until he was in a position slightly northeast of the field to turn no less than a 3 mile right base. Supervisor also states the aircraft turned short of the 4 to 5 mile base I advised Aircraft X to expect as if I did something procedurally wrong? It was an expected advisory to pilot NOT a control instruction. I elected based on observed traffic conditions to alter my plan and clear Aircraft X sooner as I felt the aircraft was safe distance from the field; the tower would receive a workable situation and targets were not in a position to merge. The second paragraph states that my actions resulted in the local controller in training taking quick action to avoid conflicting traffic but gave the wrong vector which worsened the situation. This statement is NOT an accurate reflection of what occurred. The data clearly shows Aircraft X on a 3 mile right base entry descending when aircraft initially checks in with the tower. Aircraft X was not on a collision course with the fighters until the local controller in training issued a heading of 010 degrees (almost a complete 180 degree reciprocal of the aircrafts present heading) without specifying a direction for the turn (right or left). Aircraft X elected to turn right heading 010 degrees and was then give another control instruction by the instructor to fly east bound and then heading 090 degrees.Aircraft X did NOT start a right turn towards the Military Aircraft until they were issued a questionable heading of 010 degrees. Aircraft X was not a conflictfor the Military Aircraft until he was instructed to fly a heading by the tower and started a right turn to 010 degrees. Targets were in no way on collision course to merge until issued a control instruction by the tower. My response to Aircraft X on initial check-in if working the tower would have been to simply instruct the aircraft to square his base to final to prevent an early turn from base to final if I was concerned about it. This would have allowed plenty of room for the Military Aircraft traffic in the tower pattern for the adjacent runway to turn base inside of Aircraft X on a 3 mile right base. It is my opinion after reviewing the FALCON/audio data that the local controller in training saw a potential conflict developing and panicked causing him to issue such a drastic heading. The instructor was required to intervene as a result of action taken by the local controller in training and not because Aircraft X checked in on a 3 mile right base. The instructor took action after the developmental issued the heading of 010 degrees. The third paragraph assumes my plan was to have Aircraft X fly a 5 mile final and that I did not ensure the aircraft reached this point. Plans continuously change based on evolving traffic conditions in ATC. Although I originally advised Aircraft X to expect a 4 to 5 mile base I elected to alter my plan based on observed traffic conditions at the time I issued an approach clearance. I'm well within my rights as a controller to do so. Supervisor then states that my actions placed a burden on the local controller to instruct an IFR aircraft to enter the downwind. This statement is false in so many ways. First off the Tower always has the burden to sequence VFR aircraft in the traffic pattern with arriving aircraft previously vectored/sequenced by approach control. The Tower could have easily manipulated the VFR Military Aircraft traffic in the pattern over issuing a control instruction to the IFR arriving Aircraft X if it truly was an imminent conflict. The Tower was in no way forced to turn Aircraft X nor was a vector even needed to ensure a safe landing sequence to the airport for both aircraft. The Military Aircraft traffic in the pattern could have simply been instructed to not extend downwind beyond 1 mile which is not an unreasonable request considering the performance characteristics of an Military Aircraft. Tower is equipped with a STARS Radar display to help the local controller see arriving aircraft sequenced by approach control and plan for a landing sequence in advance. The last sentence implies I did not consider the operation being conducted at the airport and used bad judgment. This statement is subjective and downright false. If I was unaware of the Military Aircraft traffic then why did I advise Aircraft X of the traffic and referenced the Military Aircraft traffic as the reason for the aircrafts wide downwind? I have many years experience working military fighter aircraft to include 6 years military service. I felt based on my experience and knowledge of procedures I handed local control a SAFE and WORKABLE situation. Some other very important items I would like to point out. The instructor in the tower stopped by the Radar room prior to this incident to request the approach advise him when the Military Aircraft were recovering from the MOA's back to Fresno. He stated that he needed to observe his developmental sequence Military Aircraft at the airport. This led me to believe he was looking for an approach sequence that was safe but also afforded his developmental the opportunity to show he could sequence Military Aircraft in with civilian traffic at the airport. I feel my approach sequence did just that. The Ground controller has stated for the record that he had to prompt the instructor to take evasive action after the local controller in training instructed Aircraft X to fly heading 010. This control instruction causes Aircraft X to turn onto a converging course with Military Aircraft in the VFR local traffic pattern creating a conflict before the instructor intervened. The data clearly shows Aircraft X did not make a harsh right turn towards the VFR Military Aircraft traffic in the pattern until instructed to fly heading 010 degrees by the local controller in training.I was also told that I forced local controller in training to issue an 'illegal heading' control instruction to Aircraft X on the Visual Approach to ensure Class C separation with VFR Military Aircraft in the tower traffic pattern. Class C separation requires that I ensure 500 feet vertical; target resolution or a form a visual separation. I contend Aircraft X was never on a converging course with local Military Aircraft in the traffic pattern and targets were not on a path to converge until the developmental issued a conflicting heading.I provided the local controller in training a safe and workable situation where Aircraft X was sequenced on a course to ensure target resolution. Also it is important to note that the Local Controller is legally permitted to require an arriving IFR visual approach adjust their flight pattern as necessary to enter the traffic pattern in sequence with arriving VFR aircraft. Reference the note in FAAO 7110.65W 2-1-4. Just because an airman is IFR on a visual approach does not make them priority over VFR traffic in the pattern. Supervisor verbally stated that all members of local management were in agreement that I was unsafe; unaware of local tower operations; did not ensure Class C separation and left tower local controller with no out. Supervisor's verbal and written statements during the Performance Record of Conference drastically contradicted feedback I received from the QATS (Quality Assurance office); the other Supervisor and the Air traffic Manager. Somebody is not being 100% truthful with me?




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported being issued an unsatisfactory performance report by their supervisor; but feels they did nothing wrong.