Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had been working Final South 'O' for the 3rd time that day. Even though I had not worked Finals for about 3 weeks. The volume was steady and the aircraft were fast and not on the STARs (contrary to the SOP). The feeder was training and by not following the SOP; created a lot more communication for the Final Controller. When the aircraft are on a STAR; it is easier to use fixes as crossing points to slow down after; descend after and depart after. But when aircraft are vectors; then the final CPC has to constantly work to descend and vector aircraft thus that causes more communication and increased workload. Thus if I90 chooses to pack them in; then it becomes sometimes difficult. Nonetheless; I vectored the left downwind Aircraft X to turn to a heading of 290 and join the 27 localizer. I can't remember if I gave him 2000 in the turn. However; when I assured the 2000; there was plenty of distance and time for the aircraft to get down (approx. 20 miles from IAH and in the turn). I noticed the Aircraft X; after some time; that he was still at 4100; so I inquired as to whether he was descending. He mentioned that he was and that I had just gave him the descent clearance. Now the aircraft was about 17 from the airport (straight in) and I turned him to a 250 heading to allow the Final Center CPC room for his aircraft to get down. The Aircraft X decided to chat about the heading; which took up valuable time. I slowed him to 180kts and asked him if he saw the airport or the Aircraft Y ahead of him. I believe at about 2200 he saw the airport so I cleared him for the Visual Approach and told him join at REDOK (FAF). At that time he was about 2.5 behind the Aircraft Y but still about 50kts faster. I told him to slow as much as practical and he said that he was coming through 145kts and then saw Aircraft Y. I re-cleared him to follow Aircraft Y and shipped him to the tower.First and foremost; training has to be done via the SOP. We as receiving controllers don't expect anything negative to come from a poor feed; but as a result it becomes a contributing factor as to more talking and vectoring. The Aircraft X pilot has to be more vigilant when inside the finals box. Asking questions and delaying instruction leads to potential issues. As a result Aircraft X had to go around; thus causing him delays and fuel. I failed to insure his descent to 2000 and his speed behind Aircraft Y. However; (I have not seen the replay; so I reserve my comments) I do believe that there was no loss of separation because of 3 factors; I had Aircraft X going direct REDOK (1000 feet above) and Aircraft Y was already past REDOK; (thus passing behind); before REDOK and joining the final Aircraft X saw Aircraft Y and was told to follow and the tower was using visual rules.




Synopsis: I90 Approach Controller describes a feed from a trainee that causes him to work harder then he should because the trainee is not following the SOP.