Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Brasilia EMB-120 All Series
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Coordinator
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Air Carrier X was sent around on a 120 heading due to Air Carrier Y slow roll still in the intersection with Air Carrier X very short final. I immediately coordinated with Approach Controller of the go around and was told to give the Air Carrier Y a 090 Heading due to the go-around. Told the Local Controller to issue Air Carrier Y a 090 heading but the Controller said they had already shipped the pilot to Approach. I immediately went back to Approach and they said they had him and had issued the 090 heading. During this time the Supervisor was shouting instructions to the Local Controller and to my amazement the Air Carrier X was now on a 070 heading back toward Air Carrier Y. I then coordinated this to Approach. In my opinion the Supervisor should not have been shouting instructions to Local as he did not know what was being coordinated. Had the Supervisor stayed out of it; all would have been fine. To my understanding he had told Local to 'give him a 070 heading' without specifying a call sign. His intervention without knowing the details caused a loss of separation in my opinion.


Second narrative: Cleared Air Carrier Y for take off from Runway 10R with Air Carrier X on a 4 mile final for Runway 19L. Told him no delay. The aircraft was slow to roll. So I sent Air Carrier X around on short final. Told him to fly heading 120. Local Assist called Approach; and they told us to have Air Carrier Y fly heading 090. He was already switched to Approach; so Local Assist went back and told Approach. The Approach Controller was putting Air Carrier Y on heading 090. I then heard my Supervisor tell me to put 'him'on a 070 heading. The only aircraft I was talking to was Air Carrier X. Air Carrier Y had been given heading 090 by Approach; so I assumed; wrongly; that he meant Air Carrier X. The way that Local Assist coordinated was; Air Carrier X heading 120 Air Carrier Y heading 090 separated both aircraft. Having me put Air Carrier X on a 070 was not a good heading at all. My Supervisor meant Air Carrier Y; but he did not specify and I was no longer talking to that aircraft. I should have questioned heading 070 before issuing it. It is difficult when multiple people are giving you different headings and different instructions. In weather like this I should have been more conservative. Even though there was more than enough spacing; the take off roll should have been cancelled earlier. The Air Carrier Y is normally a fast roller. Question before issuing headings; even if it is from a Supervisor. Do not run tight traffic in SE with bad weather. Slow down the operation; with bad visibility.


Synopsis: Tower Controller described a loss of separation event during a go around; the ATC instructions confused when a Supervisor countermanded previously coordinated headings between the Tower and TRACON.