Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Simultaneous ILS monitored approaches to 35R and 35L. My trainee was trying to fill a hole with downwind traffic. Aircraft X was cleared for the ILS approach and on tower frequency but still at 10;000 feet and complying with the charted altitudes on the ILS. The trainee turned Aircraft Y late and ended up being in the back of the hole; Aircraft X was already slowed but we ended up having 2.7 miles laterally between the two aircraft. At no time was vertical separation EVER lost. It was clear that it wasn't going to work so I instructed the monitor controller to cancel Aircraft X's approach and get him off the final. I believe we fixed the situation before it became a 'loss' as we cancelled Aircraft X clearance and turned him out before vertical separation was lost. Management at this facility disagreed. When I pushed further; management got a 'ruling' from the region. The region determined it was still a loss. I still disagree as we are the controllers and we have the ability to 'control' the situation. Furthermore; if this is a loss; then the Dual RNAV STARS feeding the downwind to DEN at D01 should all be considered losses as well; as every single aircraft is cleared to descend via to the same point in space; at the same altitude. And if this is so; we should decommission all the arrivals and cease and desist using them immediately.We should have people who actually work airplanes making policy and rulings at the regional level. These people are so disconnected from what is really happening in the field. Furthermore if this is an actual correct interpretation of the rule; then it should be considered for the chopping block. It is antiquated and unrealistic at high density airports; when trying to run minimum separation.  We are the controllers; and have been taught 1000 feet or 3 miles since day one of training. Why are we not allowed to exercise our skills as 'controllers' in every situation? Recommended change is to change this rule; or teach our region the correct way to apply this rule.




Synopsis: ATC had aircraft on parallel Runway ILS approaches with monitor controllers. The Controller turned the second aircraft on to final late causing it to overshoot across the final approach course. Although greater than minimum vertical separation existed at all times; if both aircraft are cleared for approach the FAA interprets this as a loss of separation.