Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Tower, NY
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Time Pressure; Workload
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; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the Local Control position; LGA was advertising ILS approach landing Runway 22 departing Runway 13.Aircraft X; was inbound for Runway 22. Aircraft Y; was also inbound for Runway 22. Aircraft X was approximately 10 miles northeast of the airport at 2;000ft when I noticed Aircraft Y turning tight behind Aircraft X at 2000ft approximately 1.3 miles in trail. VAP [Visual Approach] was not initially in the scratch pad for Aircraft Y but was entered when the aircraft was turning inbound. Neither aircraft were on my frequency. I informed the Front Line Manager (FLM) of the situation and that if Aircraft Y was not broken off the approach I was going to send him around on initial contact.  Aircraft X checks on and I immediately tell them about the in trail traffic and clear them to land. I hear the FLM on the phone with whom I assume is the N90 FLM asking what is going on with Aircraft Y. My FLM is still talking to N90 when I hear him say 'Oh Aircraft Y has VAP in the scratch pad so that's fine.'  I then responded to the FLM that this is not fine and is an unsafe and very dangerous situation. Aircraft Y checks on and my first transmission was to go around; turn 15 degrees to the right and maintain 2;000ft and then I issued traffic. The Cab Coordinator called N90 and advised of the go around situation and requested instructions. N90 wanted Aircraft Y RH and maintain 3;000ft. I ensured I had altitude separation before issuing the climb out N90 requested. During this time N90 questioned why Aircraft Y was so far west of the final. I was merely trying to ensure proper spacing.It is a common occurrence for LGA to send aircraft around because of overtakes due to speed or poor sequencing by N90. Just because VAP (Pilot applied visual approach) is in the scratch pad doesn't mean it is a safe operation.  N90 may not consider this a potential loss of separation because Aircraft Y said he had Aircraft X in sight but these two aircraft were dangerously close in my opinion. Apparently my FLM thinks this VAP situation was ok as well. In all the training we receive (recurrent and otherwise) we are constantly told that we live in a safety culture. We are to mitigate risk in the system and report unsafe and potentially significant events. To my knowledge my FLM did not even file an MOR on this event. When LGA has to send aircraft around we have very little airspace and very few outs. There is really no fix for that; but N90 could work on better sequencing; stable approaches; putting accurate information in the scratch pad; and realize that aircraft cannot descend and slow at the same time close to the airport. Also N90 needs to understand that VAP doesn't guarantee that Runway separation will exist. When we have to send aircraft around due to tight sequencing they always seem perplexed that it didn't work. My recommendation is to please review the Radar replay and voice of this situation.




Synopsis: LGA Tower Controller reported of an unsafe situation due to approach not separating two arrivals better.