Narrative:

A C560 was approved for a visual approach to runway 11R from the southwest; position was given 15 miles from airport. Aircraft was turned over to tower about 10 miles away; both in compliance with LOA. I had two practice VFR approaches behind the C560. I heard the d-side answering the vrb tower line just as I was noticing the C560 seeming to turn to the north and climb. D-side confirmed my suspicions that something was wrong and he told me the tower said they couldn't take him and he was coming back to us. Vrb assigned a heading of 270; climbing to 2;000 ft and that was head-on into my VFR practice approaches. I descended the C560 down to 1;700 ft; then 1;600 ft and turned him back to the airport. The C560 also got an RA and descended below the MVA to 1;300 ft. I paralleled the aircraft with the class D; slowed the aircraft as much as possible because they seemed to have a lot of pattern traffic. I then coordinated with the tower and they took him from there. The tower controller called me to apologize and I understood that he got in a jam and we both agreed he should have done a go-around to the east; not back into my traffic. Procedures should be drawn up for traffic that is an unexpected go-around. Usually this situation does not happen without coordination as they get permission to spin the aircraft in case he's high or can't follow traffic for some reason. Aircraft executing an unexpected go-around should follow normal departure procedures. Secondly; we should develop a data base of errors that happen at the vrb terminal sector and vrb and fpr tower. Then trends should be noted and isolated dangerous situations brought up in meetings between ZMA and vrb and fpr towers. There are many questionable practices between all facilities involved.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZMA Controller described a conflict event when an IFR inbound to VRB was unexpectedly turned out by VRB Tower into other inbound aircraft. The reporter suggested more formalized procedures for this type of occurrence.

Narrative: A C560 was approved for a Visual Approach to Runway 11R from the southwest; position was given 15 miles from airport. Aircraft was turned over to Tower about 10 miles away; both in compliance with LOA. I had two practice VFR approaches behind the C560. I heard the D-Side answering the VRB Tower line just as I was noticing the C560 seeming to turn to the north and climb. D-Side confirmed my suspicions that something was wrong and he told me the Tower said they couldn't take him and he was coming back to us. VRB assigned a heading of 270; climbing to 2;000 FT and that was head-on into my VFR practice approaches. I descended the C560 down to 1;700 FT; then 1;600 FT and turned him back to the airport. The C560 also got an RA and descended below the MVA to 1;300 FT. I paralleled the aircraft with the Class D; slowed the aircraft as much as possible because they seemed to have a lot of pattern traffic. I then coordinated with the Tower and they took him from there. The Tower Controller called me to apologize and I understood that he got in a jam and we both agreed he should have done a go-around to the east; not back into my traffic. Procedures should be drawn up for traffic that is an unexpected go-around. Usually this situation does not happen without coordination as they get permission to spin the aircraft in case he's high or can't follow traffic for some reason. Aircraft executing an unexpected go-around should follow normal departure procedures. Secondly; we should develop a data base of errors that happen at the VRB terminal sector and VRB and FPR Tower. Then trends should be noted and isolated dangerous situations brought up in meetings between ZMA and VRB and FPR Towers. There are many questionable practices between all facilities involved.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.