Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Tower, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90; Tower IAH
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Local; Trainee
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was training on LW with someone that has been in training and nearing certification.  This was his first day back training after training was stopped on all trainees for over a week due to new RNAV procedures at IAH.  This was his third session of the day training on LW which he previously displayed that he had a good grasp of the new procedures.  For some reason during this session he launched two aircraft back-to-back on similar initial departures 'RNAV direct TTAPS' off Runway 15L.  As soon as he cleared the second aircraft I asked him what he was doing and that it was going to be close (because he didn't clear him at the normal cutoff 'departure end' point but instead used the 6;000 and airborne cutoff for different direction routes).The trainee realized this mistake and once the second aircraft was airborne issued him a heading of 100-degrees to fix the spacing.  As the trainer I thought he understood and made the correct action to fix the situation while still proving visual separation until IFR separation was met.  Once the second aircraft was east of the first departure route and passing 2.5-miles (increasing) he advised the second to turn back 'RNAV to TTAPS.'  I had tagged both aircraft on the radar the second they tagged to ensure the spacing was meet and fixed.  Once the aircraft spacing increased and reached 2.79-miles apart; I assumed he would stop the second aircrafts climb or adjust his altitude and/or heading to ensure there weren't any problems with departure.  Instead the trainee switched him to Departure and I wasn't able to stop the frequency change.At that point I asked him; 'What the [heck] are you doing?'  Because he didn't have either altitude separation or lateral separation between the two aircraft.  He proceeded to tell me that he thought he would have 3-miles by the time he intercepted the RNAV route and called Departure.  He also said that since he saw Departure climb the first aircraft above 4;000 (second was stopped at 4;000) that he thought he was good.  When I looked back at the radar the aircraft were 2.81-miles apart and 800 feet.  The first aircraft was climbing through 4;800 and the second was level at 4;000 at 2.81-miles.  A few seconds later we look at the spacing again and Departure appeared to climb the second aircraft into the first reducing spacing again into I90's airspace.  At that point the I90 Supervisor called and said we only have 2.5-miles and 600 feet spacing which was never Tower's doing.  If spacing reduced from 2.79 & 800 feet it was because of Departure climbing the second (unless the pilot climbed via the SID without being told to do so).  The aircraft would have been altitude separated on there own based on SID and initial altitude restrictions if Departure would have said nothing to the second aircraft.  The aircraft would eventually split on the different routes increasing to more than 3-miles but that doesn't appear to be the case until later.    The entire RNAV procedures need to be reviewed and ensure everyone is on the same page and educated on their role from a controller and pilot stand point.  You can hear on the tapes during this session and previous that numerous pilots had questions or wanted confirmation on what exactly they are suppose to fly or climb to.  The entire process has been complicated and difficult to understand.  We received a couple of hours of classroom training and a 15-minute simulator session for one day weeks ago before the RNAV procedures came into effect.  I and many others had numerous questions through out the briefing and were told to wait until the end.  The charts and radar maps that we were briefed on weren't even correct.  We were told by the Briefer that we would get new maps and material to review long before the RNAV procedures went into effect and that never happened.  They literally briefed use weeks in advance; said nothing from then on and then the day of; flipped the switch and said 'figure it out!'The entire process has been confusing; questionable; and unsafe on everyone's part.  Not to mention the wording on the SID is very confusing and depending what flow we are on (east or west) it changes everything for everyone.  The person that did the briefings and advised we would get material and maps to review moved to another facility the very next day.  No one followed up with anything or any of the questions we had during the briefing.       The entire airspace into; out of; and around IAH is a problem.  It's confusing for pilots climbing out and turning the long way around on takeoff.  It's confusing from a coordination standpoint if something happens.  We need more and better training for the entire RNAV process and procedures.  We need to understand what happens with 'climb via'; what Departure says; does; and what pilots can expect.  We need more training on taking them off an RNAV approach or clearing them back on the approach in the event of a non-standard occurrence.  We also need better training on clearance and flow changes.  When Center flips the switch to change flows how do we update flight plans when the coordinated 'RM' doesn't work?  DC needs to review the RNAV arrival procedures since they don't have RNAV approaches from all directions into I90's airspace landing in an east flow.  The RNAV approaches are only setup for Runway 8L and 9 depending on arrival direction.  Hello; we don't land on Runway 9 except for on a rare occasion on east flow.  8L and 8R are arrival runways during east flow.  Runway 9 is a departure runway for north bound traffic and Runway 15R departs to the west and 15L departs to the south and east.  Nothing against the trainee but he transferred to IAH (level-12) from a level-9 facility and has less than a year before he is forced out at age 56.  He's struggled through training the entire time and yet we are still pushing him and I'm asked daily when he is going to be ready.  He struggles most of the time with simple things but I'm pressured to get the guy certified.  I've been working my tail off training the guy and trying to get him through training and he's out the door the second he's done.  I feel like the entire training system and process is a waste of time some days.


Second narrative: In training on LW.  I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff; RNAV to TTAPS.  I issued takeoff clearance to Aircraft Y too soon - more like 6;000 feet and airborne; needed more for three miles.  To correct that error I issued a heading off of the SID (forgetting to issue an altitude to maintain as required per new procedure).  When the aircraft were about 2.8 miles apart I restored Aircraft Y to the SID; expecting mileage to increase with the turn. When the aircraft was on course I shipped to Departure as Aircraft X was climbing.Mileage did not increase as I had expected and Aircraft Y climbed above the SID top altitude of 4;000.  I am not sure if Departure issued a climb or if the aircrew was confused since I did not assign an altitude with the vector. RNAV SIDS are new this week and we are still adjusting to the procedure.  Today my first occasion to train with RNAV SIDS in live traffic.The second aircraft should not have been cleared too soon.  Once it had; the second aircraft should have been issued a heading and altitude to maintain.  That aircraft should have been turned later or at least kept on frequency longer so further correction could be made.  I should have used additional vectors before or rather than returning RNAV to TTAPS.  I will not make this succession of errors again.


Synopsis: Two reports of the same incident; Developmental doesn't ensure minimum separation between successive departures.