Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C BUR
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT; Tower BUR
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Confusion
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound to BUR on the ILS and had a TCAS RA with an aircraft in the VNY traffic pattern at 1800 feet east of VNY.  He was issued a 210 heading and 4;000 feet as he was at 3;000 feet on the final.  He went around for another approach and had another TCAS RA with another aircraft in the VNY traffic pattern east of VNY as high as 1;900 feet.  This time BUR tower issued 'Execute the published missed approach' and Aircraft X immediately began a turn south and west back towards VNY VOR instead of waiting to begin the missed approach at the missed approach point.  In the mean time we were on the landline coordinating with BUR tower about the missed approach and had mistakenly said to issue Aircraft X a 210 heading but immediately corrected ourselves to which the tower responded he is already in the turn executing the published missed approach.  Since Aircraft X began his turn early at 3;000 we issued Aircraft Y a turn to 180 immediately who had departed VNY Southeast bound on a 110 heading and was at 3;000 feet within 3 miles of Aircraft X.  We also had Aircraft X turn to a 250 heading and climb to 5;000 to separate the traffic as much as possible.When BUR issues a published missed approach as a controller I expect Aircraft X to keep flying on the approach to the published missed approach point before going around giving time to correct the situation with the other aircraft that will be in the way.  Also as this was Aircraft X second go around there may have been confusion from the pilots point of view as he was issued a 210 heading at 4;000 on the first go around as we did not have any traffic conflicts that would be a problem.  As far as I am aware this was a pilot deviation since they did not execute the publish missed approach properly.


Second narrative: Aircraft X was performing an ILS Rwy 8 Approach to BUR (there was a ragged cloud layer with bases around 2;000 AGL and aircraft were getting the field in sight on about a 5-mile final).  While descending on the ILS for BUR; Aircraft X got an RA due to an aircraft in the pattern at VNY.  The pilot climbed and informed LC [local] that he would have to execute a missed approach because he would be too high and too fast to land due to his climb for the RA.LC immediately called TRACON (SCT) to advise them of the go-around.  The TRACON controller tried to get LC to get the aircraft to stay in the pattern; but LC told him that the low cloud cover wouldn't allow the aircraft to do that and we were going to have to execute the published missed approach.  The SCT controller then told her to put the plane on a 210 heading climbing to 4;000; which is the old procedure that we used to have and we're not allowed to do anymore. We have been instructed that due to our lack of a DVA; for an aircraft on an IFR missed approach we may only tell the aircraft to execute the published missed approach; which is for the aircraft to turn 180 degrees and start climbing; which will obviously place the aircraft on a collision course with anyone behind it.  For an aircraft on a visual approach; we must tell the aircraft to remain in the pattern and re-sequence it ourselves; no matter how far we have to take it outside of our airspace to do so (VNY is five miles west of BUR and WHP is five miles northwest of BUR.  Both are busy Class D airports and keeping a jet in the pattern after a go-around at BUR often results in violating the airspace of one of these airports and losing any positive separation with aircraft in the Class D airspace).I have been filing reports for the past year about how unsafe the missed approach situation is at BUR.  The standard when we have a go-around is for LC to call SCT and find a 'Work-around' since the only thing we're allowed to assign (the published missed) results in the aircraft being placed in direct conflict with any aircraft behind it.  The old procedure was to give the missed approach aircraft the SID heading and altitude (heading 210 and 4;000) to turn the aircraft into a 'Departure' to be shipped back to TRACON and sequenced.  This is what SCT usually asks us to do on a missed approach; but we're not allowed to do it.  In this case; the SCT controller asked for the aircraft on a 210 heading and climbing to 4;000 and the controller at LC issued it.  The plane was shipped back to SCT and sequenced.When Aircraft X came back from approach for his second attempt at landing; he got an RA over VNY again and had to go around again.  This time LC didn't have time to call SCT and try to find a 'Work-around;' and issued the aircraft the published missed approach procedure; which is what we've been instructed we must do.  Aircraft X commenced with the published missed approach procedure and immediately lost separation with Aircraft Y; an IFR who was off VNY.  At their closest; the aircraft were at 1.3 miles and around 500 feet of separation; but there was never a time when any form of positive separation existed between the two.I have been reporting this situation for over a year.  In all my years controlling I have never seen a situation as unsafe as the current missed approach procedure at BUR. We have been told that we must place planes in an unsafe situation; as the only thing we can do on a go-around is issue the published missed approach; which causes the plane to turn 180 degrees and start climbing; which will put him into the face of anyone on approach behind him or anyone on a SID off VNY.  We have been told that the solution is to ship the aircraft to SCT as soon as possible so that they can fix the problem. That is ridiculous.  I have never; ever heard of anywhere that has a procedure that equates to 'Point two planes at each other; allow an unsafe situation to develop; and then let someone else take care of it.' The old procedure was for us to give the missed approach plane the SID heading and altitude.  That was taken away about a year and a half ago because it was determined to be illegal since we don't have a DVA at BUR.  We have been told that getting us a DVA [Diverse Vector Areas] is a 'High priority;' but it's been over a year and a half now. If getting us a DVA is what it will take so that we can actually control aircraft and keep them from losing separation; then get us a DVA and get it to us now.  As of now; we don't have the tools we need to keep the airplanes apart at BUR.  This will not be the last time there is a loss of separation due to this situation.


Synopsis: SCT Controller describes a situation where an aircraft is issued the published missed approach at BUR and starts the turn early causing a conflict with another aircraft along with an airspace violation.