Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737-800
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: 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; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working [3] sectors combined. Weather was clear and not a factor. ZZZ Runway XXR was closed for a month; so single runway operations at ZZZ; requiring increased separation and very little margin of error for the Tower. A B737-800 was cleared for the visual approach and was number one for the airport. The B737-800 flew a long downwind which forced me to change the plan. I then made another Company 737-800 number 4 instead of 2. The second 737-800 eventually went around due to traffic on runway; a LR35. Tower called and coordinated the go around on the second 737-800 giving a 270 heading and I verifed 3;000. I did not have immediate communications with the second 737-800 and was worried that the [737-800 was] heading was towards higher MVA's. The Lear 35 checked in out of 2.7 for 5;000. The information I had was the aircraft was on the departure. I began to vector the second 737-800 for resequence with the push of aircraft inbound. I know the seond 737-800 comes in from the ocean and finding a hole is a priority. The sequence of aircraft from the south was acceptable but recognized a [another airliner] had slowed prematurely. I began speed control and vectors on all aircraft on final. My focus was well south of the airport. The Lear 35 then called and asked if he should still be on a 300 heading. At that point; the Lear 35 was in [another sector's] airspace and right in the strike zone for the ZZZ1 final. I called [the other airspace's Controller] and tried to coordinate the runaway Lear 35 with a point out. At first the [other] Controller stated point out approved on the second 737-800; the previous go-around that I had already pointed out with automation; and not the Lear 35 in the middle of the ZZZ1 final. I stated the Lear 35 is the point out and was a runaway. I also called [another sector] with a point out. I let both sectors know I was going east with the Lear 35. I called traffic for the Lear 35 on a third 737-800; inbound to ZZZ1 and a 737-700; inbound to ZZZ2. I attempted to get the Lear 35 out of harm's way with big turns and 'immediate and expedite' phraseology. I was informed later that separation was lost on both. I was also later informed the 737-800 went around a second time and was understanably angry. I should have controlled the first 737-800 base turn to final. I think staffing in the Tower should be reviewed for single runway operations at night.  The FLMs should be at the Tower later during runway closures. All aircraft out of ZZZ shoud be required to subscribe to PDC services for clearance delivery. The majority of departure issues off ZZZ are from GA.


Second narrative: The Lear 35 reached the end of the runway and reported that he was ready to go. Since it was night at an intersection I could not use LUAW. A 737-800 was on a 4 mile final. I told the Lear about the B737 on a four mile final and told him cleared for takeoff. The Lear was slow to move out onto the runway. I went back to the Lear when the B737 was on a 2 mile final and said to takeoff without delay and reissued the traffic. The Lear was still slow to takeoff; and when he was finally on his departure roll; I realized that I was not going to have the runway separation I needed. I sent the 737-800 around; told him to climb to 3;000 and turn left heading 270. I had visual on both of them; so I didn't lose separation. When the 737-800 came back around the second time; there was a Bombardier Global Express 5 miles in front of him. I had a departure with a flow time; 737; and that we had already had to re-coordinate for a new time once. After the first 737-800 there were another 4 airplanes on final each with about 5 miles of spacing. It looked like that would be the best hole to get the departure out. So; after the Global Express landed I put the 737 departure LUAW. I then went to the Global Express and told him to turn left at [a specific taxiway]. The Global Express said he would not be able to make it. In hind sight I should have gone to the 737 and taken him back off the runway. I told the Global Express to turn left at [another taxiway]; no delay off the runway. When I cleared the 737 for takeoff; the 737-800 was on a two mile final; and it looked like it might work. The 737 was a little slower than I expected starting his roll; so I had to send the 737-800 around again because I wasn't going to have runway separation. Again I told him to maintain 3;000 and turn left heading 270. Separation was not lost because I had visual.There were many factors that contributed to this. There was an arrival push; with several arrivals and several departures to get out. Since 30R is closed and we only have one runway to operate with we need a little more spacing on final to get departures out. Next time I will ask the TRACON to provide more spacing between arrivals. I will not try to get a departure out between two arrivals with less than five miles of spacing. I thought 4.5 would work; but it didn't. Next time; if it is that close and the previous arrival does not turn off when I want him to; I will get the departure back off the runway so that the next arrival can land. Instead of saying 'without delay' I should have said cleared for 'immediate' takeoff.


Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a multiple go-around event to the same inbound listing procedural restrictions and controller judgement as causal factors.