Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: P180 Avanti
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the event; I was providing OJT for a CPC-IT on Local South. The weather had been varying between MVFR and IFR throughout the morning because of a storm system moving through. Low ceilings and low visibility are rare in ZZZ which causes a lot of unnecessary paranoia amongst management and other controllers who have never worked at a facility that experiences bad weather. Earlier in the shift; the FLM had already ordered us to stop all divergent turns that we have prearranged with TRACON in the LOA; and to provide 7 MIT on any jet traffic following turboprop or prop traffic. At the time; we were operating simultaneous dependent ILS approaches between Runway 8 and Runway 7. The FLMIC ordered the Local controllers to enforce the 2-mile stagger on final; even though he had already told TRACON that we were not seeing any traffic until they were near the ILS approach minimums. This was also against the TRACON-ZZZ LOA. According to the LOA: ZZZ Must: Assume separation responsibility for RADAR arrivals on the same or adjacent final approach within 3NM of the landing threshold. At any time; ZZZ cannot provide visual separation; the ZZZ FLMIC/CIC must advise the TRACON FLMIC/CIC and the RADAR Controller must assume separation responsibility. In the event I'm reporting; Air Carrier X was on final for Runway 7; 2.3 miles in front of Air Carrier Y on final for Runway 8. Air Carrier X was at approximately a 1.5 mile final when the FLM ordered us to send Air Carrier X around because of the overtake from Air Carrier Y on the Runway 8 final. We sent Air Carrier X around; unbeknownst to us; the TRACON finals' Controller responsible for Runway 8 had already initiated a go around with Air Carrier Y. Air Carrier X replied to our go around transmission with 'Unable; minimum fuel.' For safety's sake; I told the Trainee to re-clear him to land and told the FLM to have Air Carrier Y go around because Air Carrier X had minimal fuel and would be landing. We then observed Air Carrier Y start a climb for the go around. Had Air Carrier X completed his go around as instructed; there would have been an instant loss of separation and some sort of divergent turn would have been required. Following the incident; the FLM came over and told us that just because Air Carrier X says 'minimum fuel' and not 'emergency fuel'; it doesn't make him an emergency. I feel as though his argument is pure semantics. To question an aircraft on a precision approach short final in IFR weather as to whether or not they meant to say they are on emergency fuel is as much a safety hazard as two aircraft less than 3 miles apart in IFR weather. I would recommend that the ZZZ FLMIC review the ZZZ/TRACON LOA section regarding separation on approaches during periods of low visibility.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a potential multiple go around event during marginal weather when staggered separation was in doubt and one aircraft declared minimum fuel; the reporter questioning the FLM's LOA knowledge.