Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I told the first guy about the second guy. I told the second guy about his overtake with the first guy. As I started to issue instructions for the first guy to exit and taxi; I saw the second guy initiate his own go-around; as I issued instructions to the first guy. No reason to talk to him in a critical phase of flight; so I waited for him to report his go around. IF HE HAD KEPT HIS DESCENT AND APPROACH AND LANDED; RUNWAY SEPARATION WOULD HAVE BEEN MET; the pilot chose to go around even though it was going to work; that's his right.Today I had a discussion with my supervisor. He showed me this pretty graphic showing a loss that came from ASDE data. Remember this is a Tower where we judge runway separation by looking out the windows. I explained to him 'when' he went around; which was well before the threshold. So the graphic is meaningless because the aircraft sped up prior to the threshold. Even though I told him I saw him initiate the go-around as I started to talk to the first guy; I was informed that this will be investigated as a loss.I find this insulting! It is being insinuated that I am lying or did not see what I saw. I was told that I could have used speed control. Wrong! I cannot use speed control inside the final approach fix. That's why I inform pilots about the overtake and leave it up to them to adjust their speed in a safe fashion. I asked if they wanted me to send aircraft around anytime its close and pilot might go around on his own; even though I think it'll work. They said no; don't do that. So here we are; I could have done nothing different. If I send them around because a pilot might go around; I'm wrong. If I let them land but they initiate their own go around; I'm wrong. And then later; when they talk to me; it doesn't matter at all when I tell them what I saw out the window. They only care about the data they can use to make graphics with.The problem is not with Supervisors; but with the desk jockeys that make and investigate these events. It is a continuing problem we see over and over where someone who has never worked a Tower thinks they know how a Tower works. I understand needing to investigate to prevent future problems; but the problem here is they aren't listening to what I saw out the window. What is the point if you don't take ALL information into account? Insulting the controllers that work the airplanes will only add to distractions and reduce controller's abilities. It is time to take a look at this and stop this problem before it gets worse. Either tell controllers to send around airplanes whenever a pilot might go around or listen to your controllers and take what they say with the same weight as the data.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported Quality Assurance staff suggested a pilot initiated go-around due to preceding traffic was an ATC Operational Error.