TRACON developmental described an overtake event on final between a PAR and TACAN aircraft. The repo...

Narrative:

I was training and was sequencing arrivals into a navy airport. I had one aircraft (T34) on a 5 mile PAR final with a BE20 executing a TACAN approach to the same runway. I assumed the BE20 would slow down more than he did when he turned into the wind. I originally told the BE20 to contact the tower; but my trainer over keyed and told the aircraft to remain on frequency to which the pilot replied roger. Shortly after; I gave the BE20 alternate instructions and cancelled his approach; but he didn't respond. I called the tower and told them to give him the instructions if he was on their frequency. After a few seconds; the tower said they had him finally and said they gave him the instruction. By this point the BE20 was 2 miles from the T34 turning and climbing. Part of the complexity involved in this situation and the confusion between controllers stems from an inability to coordinate between the navy facility and our own; because our systems don't allow for automation. Having to manually hand off and coordinate every inbound is very taxing and distracting to the overall goal of concentrating on separation and sequencing. Additionally having to maintain strips for more than six different aircraft at a time caused us to keep our heads down too often to scan effectively.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON developmental described an overtake event on final between a PAR and TACAN aircraft. The reporter listed coordination complexities and limited automation interface between the TRACON and the Navy base as causal factors.

Narrative: I was training and was sequencing arrivals into a Navy airport. I had one aircraft (T34) on a 5 mile PAR final with a BE20 executing a TACAN approach to the same runway. I assumed the BE20 would slow down more than he did when he turned into the wind. I originally told the BE20 to contact the Tower; but my trainer over keyed and told the aircraft to remain on frequency to which the pilot replied roger. Shortly after; I gave the BE20 alternate instructions and cancelled his approach; but he didn't respond. I called the Tower and told them to give him the instructions if he was on their frequency. After a few seconds; the Tower said they had him finally and said they gave him the instruction. By this point the BE20 was 2 miles from the T34 turning and climbing. Part of the complexity involved in this situation and the confusion between controllers stems from an inability to coordinate between the Navy facility and our own; because our systems don't allow for automation. Having to manually hand off and coordinate every inbound is very taxing and distracting to the overall goal of concentrating on separation and sequencing. Additionally having to maintain strips for more than six different aircraft at a time caused us to keep our heads down too often to scan effectively.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1093524
Time
Date	201306
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Mentor/Turbo Mentor (T-34)
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Super King Air 200
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Developmental
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

TRACON developmental described an overtake event on final between a PAR and TACAN aircraft. The reporter listed coordination complexities and limited automation interface between the TRACON and the navy base as causal factors.