Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Tower, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: FBO
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was working Local Control. Aircraft X departed FTG needed to head west (275 on course heading) to destination. Recently our supervisor had encouraged us to keep (as much as possible) all [helicopters] on course and encouraged our crew to cross landing runways and over the approach ends of arrival runways when appropriate. I attempted to comply with this request (though he was not working that day) however I was trained differently. Trained NOT to delay a [helicopter] but to keep as much traffic moving as possible (all traffic). I had been given performance counseling for having a [helicopter] proceed direct the tower; depart tower southbound; proceed on course and was accused or told that I was delaying [the helicopter]; so I wanted to comply with our new directions and am on board to provide the best service we can.I called traffic to landing traffic to the left runway as well as to Aircraft X with the intention to cross the approach end no less than 500 feet over landing traffic. That didn't work; I had to apply visual separation and have Aircraft X pass behind the CRJ on final to the left runway and he was now not aligned/set-up for an approach end crossing. I decided to keep him headed west to go through the other final and I attempted a point out with the other Local Controller AFTER calling traffic to Aircraft X for the CRJ on final to RWY 34R.The button/touch-screen on the RDVS (Rapid Deployment Voice Switch) didn't work (it rarely does and when it does it goes in and out and in and out of connection). Instead I had to shout across the tower and coordinate his heading; that he would pass behind [the CRJ] and then proceed on course westbound on a 275 heading. Meanwhile Aircraft X is getting closer to [the CRJ] who is on final for the right runway. As I was about to tell Aircraft X to hold his position; he announced a southbound 360 turn (he had done this prior with the first CRJ on 35L when I told him to 'hold his position' and executed a southbound 360 which threw me.) I had never seen that before; was not trained that I can remember that Helicopters needed/or may do that when told to hold. I allowed him to execute/begin his south 360; had him pass behind the CRJ and proceed on course. I was told that because I didn't tell Aircraft X a control instruction FIRST; prior to him telling me his turn; that I had a loss of separation despite using tower applied visual separation. I didn't feel the need to reiterate what he was doing; as that's what I wanted and anticipated him to do in the first place. I suppose I should have just told him to hold his position prior to attempting coordination with the other Local Controller. I had visual on Aircraft X and all landing traffic the entire time.Apparently; [the CRJ] reported after landing that 'it was a close one;' with the helicopter on final. I have no idea if they called traffic to their [aircraft]. Training was in progress at the other Local Control. This is my first issue with VFR to IFR traffic.Personally; I would have gone with my gut instinct and previous training and departed the Aircraft X southbound for 1-2 miles then had him proceed on course. Altitude separation would have been maintained without effort; there would have been no disruption to aircraft landing on final and Aircraft X would have been able to proceed without delay. I could have also gone northbound and crossed over the arrival runways midfield; or direct the tower. I go so focused on the newer 'directive' that common sense and previous methodology seemed to go out the door. I felt I had to stick with the original plan and I suppose felt stuck. This concept of stopping all applicable traffic is newer here. It may sound odd but in training and up until semi-recently the environment has changed regarding priority handling and working traffic in general. It seems that it's hard to put into practice after having the other side of the coin pounded into your mind. No one has a major problem with this change; but making the change or executing the change is challenging for some. Some practice in our refresher training would be good (especially with helicopter's not getting traffic in sight). Prior we had a certain way of running helicopters that made it easy for all traffic to continue and required little in the way of vectors; traffic calls etc. Some are struggling with it. I'm not the only one.Fix the dang RDVS at the position. I have been here almost 8 years and it's been a problem for that long. The excuse/reason it doesn't get fixed doesn't grant eight years of not getting it fixed. It's a problem no matter who you are trying to call from that position. It's terrible.




Synopsis: DEN Tower Controller attempted to use a new procedure that allowed a helicopter and arriving aircraft to get too close causing the helicopter to take evasive action.