Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: Tower ONT
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Air Carrier X on Visual Approach Runway 26L. Helicopter Y maneuvering near 4 mile final. LC issued traffic to both and both said they had each other in sight. Air Carrier X got a TCAS/RA and went around. Then Air Carrier Z was issued traffic about the Helicopter Y; and Helicopter Y was also issued the traffic of the Air Carrier Z and to maintain visual. Air Carrier Z got an RA and went around. Air Carrier W was then cleared for takeoff Runway 26R (in due time for wake turbulence) and then LC canceled takeoff clearance and told to line up and wait. LC had to say something and that is what came to mind; instead of continue holding in position. If the aircraft has the other in sight; why would they have to respond to an RA? Why do they not trust their eyes but listen to a computer? I would have liked the aircraft to either let us know that they lost contact with the Helicopter or said that they never saw it.


Second narrative: Air Carrier X was on a Visual Approach to Runway 26L about 7 miles final; traffic was a primary only target at his 1 o'clock; traffic was issued. A police helicopter called and said that it was him about 6 miles NE of ONT and was on a police mission; chasing a subject. The police helicopter was issued traffic on Air Carrier X and said he had it in sight; and was then instructed to maintain visual separation. Air Carrier X was also issued the traffic on the helicopter and reported traffic in sight. At about 4 mile final Air Carrier X said that he was responding to an RA and was going around. I cancelled his landing clearance and told him to go around; coordinated with Approach; and gave him the appropriate instructions. Air Carrier Z was on a Visual Approach to Runway 26L about 8 mile final; the Helicopter Y was about 4 miles NE of ONT at 1;900 feet MSL. Helicopter Y was given traffic on Air Carrier Z and was told to remain north of the I-10 Freeway (about 1 mile north of the final approach corridor). Air Carrier Z was also given traffic on the helicopter and was told that the helicopter would remain north of the freeway. The helicopter was also instructed to maintain visual separation from Air Carrier Z. At about 4 mile final Air Carrier Z said that he was responding to an RA and that he was going around. He was told to cancel take off clearance and go around. I then coordinated with approach again; and issued the appropriate go around instructions. While Air Carrier Z was still on approach; I cleared Air Carrier W for take off on Runway 26R. Air Carrier W was on the runway and about to roll when Air Carrier Z said he was going around. I told Air Carrier W to cancel take off clearance; and line up and wait since he was already on the runway. I then waited for both Air Carrier X and Air Carrier Z to land before clearing Air Carrier W for take off again.After both aircraft had gone around and were back inbound; the Approach Controller called me and yelled at me to move the helicopter away from final. I asked the helicopter to move 1 mile north of his position temporarily until the aircraft passed him. The helicopter informed me that he was on scene and that his partner on the ground had a suspect underneath a bridge and that if he moved then his partner may lose the suspect. I told the helicopter to just move north a mile and I would get him back just as soon as possible. Recommend some type of LOA with the Police Department that describes whether or not to move them if they are actively pursuing a subject. Not sure if I was supposed to move him out of the way for the inbound traffic or let him continue his mission and have the inbound traffic hold or give way to him. Approach controllers should be briefed to not interfere with the Tower's traffic. Pilots should also be able to trust their eyes when they have traffic in sight and not have to respond to the RA and go around on approach.


Synopsis: ONT Controller described multiple TCAS RA events; resulting in two go arounds during police helicopter operations near the landing runway.