Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Departure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Observer
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the Local Controller during a moderately busy period. Traffic consisted of multiple IFR practice approaches arrivals and departures. During this event; an aircraft on a practice IFR approach was on 6 mile final with a climbout procedure. The climbout is a heading of 180; climb to 3;000 feet and is usually pre-coordinated. It is not an official climbout; but it is an understanding between Radar and Tower Controller. Aircraft X called up ready for takeoff with an IFR flight plan southbound also with a 180 heading climbout. With VFR traffic in the Tower pattern; two other aircraft approaching the initial for the overhead; two other instrument approaches on final and simultaneous converging arrival on an intersecting runway with an air carrier and an small aircraft; I determined I had the time and spacing to clear Aircraft X for takeoff with a heading of 200 to create divergence with Aircraft Y when he completes his approach. Usually a 200 heading should be pre-coordinated but due to the traffic complexity and volume between myself and the Radar Controller; we were unable to coordinate. I monitored Radar's frequency several times for a break between transmissions but the frequency was heavily congested. Aircraft Y executed a missed approach for training and started his right southbound turnout earlier than anticipated with the overhead aircraft approaching numbers for the right break. I instructed the overhead pattern traffic to 'break now' to avoid any conflict with the Aircraft Y on his missed approach turn.I gave a traffic call to Aircraft Y on Aircraft X that was a few miles upwind and verified Aircraft Y's 180 heading. I then instructed Aircraft X to check in on his 200 heading with approach due to it being a nonstandard heading. I was not aware of any loss of separation at the time and was notified days later. I recommend better coordination would prevent a re-occurrence of this event as well as having the climbout published. I understand that it was used in the past and would like for it to be a part of our climbout procedures.


Second narrative: Aircraft X had just completed an instrument approach and was departing southbound to their destination. Original climb given to Aircraft X was heading 180 maintain 3;000 feet. Aircraft Y was on 5 mile final instrument approach with climbout heading 180 maintain 3;000 feet. Tower requested a heading 220 for Aircraft X which I approved to Radar. When Aircraft X checked on frequency; they were radar identified and then assigned initial heading 180. Aircraft X at the time was 50 knots. Aircraft Y checked in on frequency and I immediately recognized the potential conflict. Traffic Alert was issued and Aircraft Y was turned to heading 150 to de-conflict.Recognizing aircraft performance characteristics when issuing climb outs; especially when working heavy volume traffic. Tower could have issued a 150 heading to Aircraft Y instead of issuing heading 220 for Aircraft X; airspace design would have benefited the less aggressive divergence attempt. There should have been better coordination between Tower and North Radar.


Synopsis: Local Tower Controller and Radar Controller reported a conflict between a go-around aircraft and a slower moving departure.