Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: FLM [Front Line Manager] was giving a skills check on Local position. Aircraft Y was on a right downwind VFR at 3;500 feet approximately midfield to approach end. Aircraft Y checked in on the frequency with Aircraft X in sight. The Developmental told Aircraft Y caution wake turbulence RWY26L cleared to land. I advised the FLM that 'Shouldn't he be telling Aircraft Y to maintain visual separation caution wake turbulence in addition giving positive control instruction and telling Aircraft Y to pass behind the aircraft; if that's what is intended.' The FLM seemed to disagree and also stated that at 3;500 feet there was no way they were going to turn ahead of Aircraft X that was at 4NM final at the time. He also said that TRACON should have done their job and have issued it therefore we were not responsible for advising aircraft to maintain visual separation. Aircraft Y ended up turning base directly behind Aircraft X and turned final about 1.5nm behind and was 500 feet above which degraded to 100-200 feet above (approximately) on short final. I later called Approach Supervisor's desk to ask them and verify responsibility for VFR aircraft and wake turbulence. To which they said since we (ZZZ) sequence VFR aircraft and are responsible to provide the separation. At this point I began filling out the report.Previous to this issue; about 10-15 prior to the skill check; the Developmental cleared a [carrier] for takeoff after being released for what I calculated 4 minutes. We are allotted 3 minutes for IFR release. So I asked the Developmental what time they were released to verify and prevent an IFR aircraft departing outside an IFR release window. The FLM turned around and aggressively waved their hands and said 'Safety only!' I guess as in don't say anything unless planes are going to hit? I understand that training needs to be accomplished but I don't feel comfortable working a supervisory position where spot corrections are mandatory but unable to voice my concerns with the operation. I don't mind allowing time for the Developmental to work or allowing time for the FLM on position to wait to see if the Developmental is going to correct a situation before stepping in to fix the issue; but the FLM was just allowing the Developmental to work without ensuring conflicts were getting resolved. I have spoken with the ATM [Air Traffic Manager] within the last week regarding previous safety concerns that supervisors should not be directly plugged in with a developmental during skill/certification checks. They should look into having controllers plugged in while FLM's observe the position. There have been other issues within the last month among other FLM and other skill/certification check operations. This doesn't appear to be an isolated event.


Second narrative: I was receiving a skills check on Local Control. Aircraft Y checked on with ZZZ ATC approximately mid-field; right downwind; VFR; and reported Aircraft X insight. Aircraft Y was on a 2-mile final; at approximately 1500 feet and descending. I issued a caution wake turbulence advisory to Aircraft Y with no instructions to maintain visual separation; pass behind Aircraft X; etc.; due to after considering aircraft performance and positions; I determined there was no way Aircraft Y would 'beat' or turn in front of Aircraft X; now short final. The CIC immediately starts to query the Supervisor giving me a skills-check; as to if I am doing things appropriately. The FLM conducting the skills check shook his head in acknowledgment to the CIC; and signaled for the CIC to 'quiet' and allow the FLM to conduct the skills check without interruption. The closest the aircraft came to each other was no less than 500ft vertical and 2nm lateral. There was no TCAS RA.Throughout the remainder of the skills check; the CIC continued to query the FLM about every situation he didn't agree with; constantly interrupting my training and distracting myself and the FLM. I am learning; it's quite difficult to learn when someone in the back of the room is constantly making remarks about what is or is not happening; especially when there is no reference to safety.Implement procedures for indicating whether or not aircraft on final have been sequenced or not by SCT; i.e. VSR/VSL in scratchpad (Visual Separation Right RWY/Visual Separation Left RWY).


Synopsis: ATC Tower CIC; Developmental;and FLM reported issues that took place during a skill check.