Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGB.Tower, CA
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D LGB
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the instructor administering OJT to a Developmental on Local Control 1 and Local Control 2 combined. I had never worked with this Developmental Controller before and was unfamiliar with his skill level. He was doing very well for his time on position. Based on this performance by him I felt comfortable giving him a long rope to work his traffic with. I was given the option to be relived by a Controller just coming onto shift. I made the decision and coordinated with the CIC to leave us on position because the traffic volume and complexity were very good and I wanted the Developmental the chance to work with and see this traffic. The event was as follows: Aircraft X was IFR inbound to Runway 30 a full stop landing. Aircraft Y was in the pattern on Runway 25L. Both X and Y were competing for the crossing intersection of Runways 30 and 25L. Other work duties and airplanes consumed both my attention and the attention of the Developmental including my taking the time to discuss with the CIC leaving us on position and having the Controller that was to relieve us instead assist us as the local assist. The result was X and Y seeing each other and performing simultaneous multiple go around for the intersection prior to me or the Developmental issuing a go around command to either aircraft. I did instruct the Developmental to send Aircraft Y but since both aircraft had already begun their go around maneuvers he did not. When I first became aware of the situation I should have been the one to over ride and issue that movement and control instruction instead of trying to get the Developmental to take immediate corrective action. Aircraft Y flew straight ahead at a steeper climb rate on the go around for Runway 25L. Aircraft X flew straight ahead at a much lower climb rate and opted to go around and not land. Since Aircraft X was IFR we asked the flight crew to state their intentions; they stated they wanted to come back around and land. We asked the flight crew if they wanted to do this VFR and remain in right closed traffic for Runway 30 and they said affirmative. Aircraft X was instructed to squawk VFR and flew the pattern and landed without incident on Runway 30. Aircraft Y continued to fly the pattern for the next 15 minutes or so and then landed and returned to parking. Neither flight crew complained. Both the Developmental Controller and I were slow to react and control this situation which leads to both flight crews taking simultaneous actions to see and avoid the other aircraft competing for the intersection. Recommendation; I have several recommendations based on this event: 1. If the FLM has not seen a particular Developmental and OJTI work together before they really should be present in the tower cab after assigning this training. I am not trying to blame what happened on the FLM; however after the FLM assigned the training they went down stairs right away and in a way we lost that extra set of eyes that may have been more concentrating than the CIC replacement. 2. At our facility there has been this new trend to leave the locals combined when in the past we typically split the locals around XA00 AM or so regardless of the traffic volume and complexity. The problem I see here is that often the LA is less challenged being an LA then they would have been challenged had they just opened up Local Two. Human beings need something to do; they need to be challenged and sometimes doing is better than monitoring. I think that being more aggressive with the splitting the locals would more evenly spread the work load and thus have more Controllers looking at or working fewer airplanes each. 3. If an instructor and student have never worked together before as in this case; then something needs to change. Either the instructor needs to become more familiar with the student's abilities prior to administering training or the Developmental Controller needs to be more vocal about where they are experience wise on the position prior to plugging in with the OJTI for the first time combination together. 4. I discussed in detail with this student a technique that has worked well over the years and it is this: each plane competing for the intersection needs to be told about the other aircraft that is also competing for that intersection. Each flight crew needs to be pre-advised of what the plane is to be given landing priority. Who is to be number one through the intersection; who is to be number two and who will most likely be performing the go around i.e. who will be given the priority to land is an essential exchange of information to maintain safety and overall traffic awareness. In this case it is most often the 30 lander who is given this priority. Had this been done in this situation early on the outcome would have been less reactive and more proactive on our part.




Synopsis: LGB Controller providing OJT described a double go around event initiated by the aircraft because of developing conflict at the intersection of the landing runways. The reporter acknowledged a failure to intercede in a timely manner.