Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90; Tower LGA
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
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
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: LGA was landing/departing RWY 4. Aircraft x was sent around by LGA Tower due to a 'slow roller' departing same runway.  Tower Coordinator called Radar Coordinator (myself) informing us of the go-around and the callsign. I asked Tower what climb out the next departure was doing and he stated he was on a 360 heading (standard climb out for a west/south gate departures); and the go-around was 'going by the sheet.'  'By the sheet' means the standard go-around/missed approach procedures document which states what the Tower will instruct a go-around on various runway configurations *only if the Tower Coordinator cannot get in contact with the Radar Coordinator*. In this case; the go-around was assigned left turn heading of 340 and a climb to 2;000 FT.  I told tower Coordinator to give the go-around a runway heading to 3;000 FT and to stop departures behind; but Tower advised that he was already in the left turn.  So I then stated to head 340 and climb to 3;000 FT and stop departures behind.  Tower Coordinator acknowledged.  I called Tower Coordinator a second later to give them the correct frequency to give the go-around.  When I went to instruct Departure of what was being coordinated; separation was already lost between the go-around and the departure.  I had zero time to inform the Departure Controller of the instructions the go-around was given. Aircraft x was switched to Departure; he checked in out of 1;000 FT climbing to 2;000 (did not state a heading); and a vector was given to the go-around well prior to my coordination being completed with the Tower.  The Departure Controller was under the assumption that the go-around was runway heading due to the radar track appearing to remain runway heading and gave a right turn to a 090 heading; not knowing that the go-around was beginning the left turn to a 340.  The departure Aircraft Y was airborne (climbing to 5;000 FT; left turn to a 360) around the same time the go-around began his right turn to the 090 heading.  Aircraft Y checked in with Departure about 4 DME north of LGA climbing out of 3;500 (est.).  Fortunately; the go-around saw the departure off his right side; but well after separation was lost and the departure aircraft also had the go-around aircraft visually as well on initial contact. The fact that the Tower switched the go-around to Departure well before the aircraft was established on a 340 heading; in my opinion; is not ensuring separation with a departure also making a left turn northbound. Aircraft X was given go-around instructions and switched to Departure almost instantaneously.  When the Tower called me about the go-around; I never had the notion that the aircraft was already switched to Departure.  Like other go-around traffic; my belief is that the Tower still has the go-around on their frequency ensuring that the go-around will be properly separated by the departure.  For this specific configuration (land/depart Runway 4) a standard go-around is to be issued a left turn to a 340 and a climb to 2;000.  Departures are assigned either a left turn to 360; or runway heading; dependent on their initial fix on their flight plan.  I believe this is a hazard due to the high possibility that a departure can go airborne on a left turn 360.  Having a go-around also executing a left turn 20 degrees more to the left is not the safest operation since the go-around is cleaning up the aircraft.  The go-around turn could be wider than that of the departures turn. The departure plans on the turn as soon as their airborne; the go-around does not plan for a turn as fast and could take that extra second or two to begin the turn.  On an IFR day; two aircraft turning in the same direction in the same vicinity could be trouble.  There are other configurations with go-around/missed approach procedures on the sheet that need to be considered for review/revision in my opinion if it were to be followed on *every go-around*. For the configuration mentioned in thisincident; the go-around should do opposite of what the departure aircraft is assigned. For example; an aircraft on final is issued a go-around due to a slow roller and the departure will be turning to a 360 heading. Assign the go-around runway heading. If the departure was assigned runway heading; then give the go-around the left 360.  If divergence is still a question; amend the departures altitude to a lower altitude than the go-around since the go-around is already airborne.




Synopsis: N90 Controller describes situation where a go-around and a departure have a loss of separation. Lack of good communication in a timely manner helped cause this situation.