Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Trainee; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Approach; Departure
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: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While conducting OJT as a developmental; the sectors were combined; so all the departure sectors were on one sector. Traffic was busy; but manageable; and the Tower called with a go around; and asked for non-standard routing on the go around aircraft and the aircraft immediately in front of that aircraft to establish some sort of separation between them. Aircraft are routinely cleared to land and take off parallel runways separated by less then 2;500 FT at LAS; and no effective procedure is in place to safely handle go-arounds off one runway with departures off the other if they are in close proximity. If they are not in close proximity; the go around is issued runway heading of 250 degrees until 3 DME then heading 200 degrees. Go around aircraft are then resequenced into the downwind and sequenced/positioned for another approach. In the case of a departure off the parallel runway; the Tower calls and requests something different; possibly for both aircraft; as the usual procedures puts the aircraft close together. In this case the Tower requested a left turn for the go around off the left runway; and runway heading for the departure off the right runway. This request was approved; as the Tower indicated it was the only option they had; and the OJTI and myself felt we could not disapprove the request; as they would be delivered to us in this manner. This; in and of itself; would not have been a problem had the sector had no other traffic to contend with; but there were other airplanes in the sector; and failure to keep up with all aircraft led to the aircraft in question to stray into higher MVA. Due to the proximity of high terrain off the departure end of Runway 25 at LAS; any aircraft assigned runway heading is inherently dangerous; as any distraction to the controller could result in aircraft running into rising terrain. Due to this fact; all procedures off Runway 25 turn aircraft parallel or away from high terrain; except one which heads them slightly into terrain. The missed approach go around procedure in place also heads aircraft slightly into terrain. Runway heading assignment off of Runway 25 should never be utilized for the preceding terrain obstruction avoidance reason. A procedure needs to be developed which will eliminate this runway heading assignment. An option may be to turn one of the aircraft either via RADAR vector or SID Departure route to the south; and then using visual separation turn the second or following aircraft to the south. In effect; the preceding aircraft is given the turn to the south; and the trailing aircraft either go around or departure is told to maintain visual and follow that aircraft to the south. This allows for aircraft to not be vectored into higher terrain; and gives the RADAR Departure Controller both time; and airspace to salvage a situation that currently is systemic and inherently dangerous.


Second narrative: An IFR BE58 departed Runway 19 on a 175 heading; climbing to 60. An IFR CRJ was cleared for take off of Runway 25R; and an IFR B737 conducted a 'Go-Around' on Runway 25L. Local 1 called and advised of the Go-Around; and asked for heading 190 and 60 for the B737; and runway heading for the CRJ. I approved this. Training was being conducted; and we had predetermined that I would work the 'Go-Arounds'. When the 'Go-Around' aircraft checked in; I issued RADAR contact; and a heading of 070 to miss the BE58 just south of the field still not out of 55. Then the CRJ called and I RADAR identified him as well. As all three departure sectors were combined; I was also working 2 B190s VFR into HND; and a VFR PA28 from VGT to the Los Angeles basin; a third B190 flashing at us from ZLA8; and at least one aircraft on the STAAV departure. I couldn't climb the 'Go-Around' any higher than 70 because of downwind traffic; and I coordinated with FNL for direct BLD VOR and 70. Then I issued it to the 'Go-Around' I then went back to the CRJ; and issued turn left heading 180; climb and maintain FL190. In his turn; the CRJ spilled into an 85 MVA while climbing out of 72. In a situation where two aircraft need to go south; and visual separation is being utilized; offset the trailing aircraft to the north; issue the same altitude (as visual is being applied) and the receiving sector can have something to work with. Stop putting the trailing aircraft south of the preceding aircraft; knowing that they each need to go south; thus precluding the advantages of visual separation afforded to the receiving controller. This could be accomplished with a simple statement such as; 'Maintain visual separation from the preceding aircraft; offset to the north.' The pilot reads back; and then you say; 'Preceding traffic will be turning southbound ahead of you; fly heading 190; contact Departure.'


Synopsis: L30 Controller described a below MVA entry event involving missed approach aircraft from Runway 25L; the reporter voicing concern regarding current procedures covering missed approaches at LAS.