Narrative:

A traffic (traffic) watch cessna had requested to proceed on traffic circuit. I approved his request with the luna transition. I made the appropriate point out with lcw who is responsible for the arrival traffic. The luna transition is the most conservative; and I thought had built in separation. As this C172 was proceeding north along luna road; I noticed that a falcon was descending below glideslope; not uncommon for a visual approach. I called traffic but had two traffic watch cessnas on frequency at the time; both responded; garbled; but I thought I heard one say he had traffic in sight; so clarified exactly which traffic watch cessna; and told him to maintain visual separation. As the first traffic C172 proceed north bound; I noted a B737 in bound from northwest was also descending below glideslope on a visual approach. I called traffic with the C172 pilot stating he was 'looking.' he had wanted to turn east which would have put him under the arrival. I told him to continue north to keep him west of the arrival corridor for the B737. I noted the B737 not turning inbound towards dal but rather making more of an ILS approach (wider) without the altitude restriction. I told the C172 to turn northwest to create more space. The B737 finally turned towards dal. In the northwest turn I did not realize that I had violated dfw tower's airspace; I was more focused on keeping the C172 west of the arrival. I was later informed by my supervisor that there were also separation issues with both arrivals. We discussed appropriate visual separation usage and alternatives to luna transition for any fixed wing wanting the same transition north in our airspace. I will no longer allow the luna transition but rather utilize the tower transition to totally eliminate the 'looking' situation or rather the reliance on visual separation unless protections are restored. One of the problems with being an older controller is I remember when two things were in place regarding the traffic watch aircraft and the LOA. Number 1- the LOA was written so that the most conservative transition; in this case the luna transition; was 'bullet proof' meaning that traffic watch could fly it and no coordination was required because the VFR aircraft was at least a mile and a half away from the finals especially for the runway 13L arrivals which both of these were. Apparently; this LOA does not provide that controller/traffic watch protection. I admit I am not sure when that protection disappeared; however; I am now well aware that there is no protection at all. Number 2- D10 used to restrict inbound traffic to 'at or above 2;500 until established on final' or some would use 'until the mixmaster' a local point of reference; which also provided built in protection. I was aware that some at D10 to include their support specialist believe that no VFR aircraft have any business in bravo airspace; and have therefore discontinued this restriction. Some also say you can not put an 'at or above' or 'paper stop' restriction on any aircraft doing an approach.my recommendations are: 1) make a decision: if VFR traffic watch/or other VFR aircraft have no business in bravo; then inform the traffic watch and all other VFR fixed wings; and write the LOA to reflect this attitude.2) any LOA should be written (as before) to provide built in protection. Realign airspace if necessary. Most of the subject airspace is of no impact on dfw tower.3) if VFR aircraft should be allowed in bravo; then reinstitute the 'at or above' restriction by D10. It worked for 15 years before someone decided bravo was not for VFR.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DAL Controller reports difficulties with traffic watch aircraft conflicting with arrivals.

Narrative: A Traffic (TFC) Watch Cessna had requested to proceed on TFC circuit. I approved his request with the LUNA transition. I made the appropriate point out with LCW who is responsible for the arrival traffic. The LUNA Transition is the most conservative; and I thought had built in separation. As this C172 was proceeding north along LUNA road; I noticed that a Falcon was descending below glideslope; not uncommon for a visual approach. I called traffic but had two TFC Watch Cessnas on frequency at the time; both responded; garbled; but I thought I heard one say he had traffic in sight; so clarified exactly which TFC Watch Cessna; and told him to maintain Visual separation. As the first TFC C172 proceed north bound; I noted a B737 in bound from northwest was also descending below glideslope on a Visual approach. I called traffic with the C172 pilot stating he was 'looking.' He had wanted to turn east which would have put him under the arrival. I told him to continue north to keep him west of the arrival corridor for the B737. I noted the B737 not turning inbound towards DAL but rather making more of an ILS approach (wider) without the altitude restriction. I told the C172 to turn northwest to create more space. The B737 finally turned towards DAL. In the northwest turn I did not realize that I had violated DFW Tower's airspace; I was more focused on keeping the C172 west of the arrival. I was later informed by my supervisor that there were also separation issues with both arrivals. We discussed appropriate visual separation usage and alternatives to LUNA transition for any fixed wing wanting the same transition north in our airspace. I will no longer allow the LUNA transition but rather utilize the Tower transition to totally eliminate the 'looking' situation or rather the reliance on visual separation unless protections are restored. One of the problems with being an older controller is I remember when two things were in place regarding the traffic watch aircraft and the LOA. Number 1- the LOA was written so that the most conservative transition; in this case the LUNA transition; was 'bullet proof' meaning that traffic watch could fly it and no coordination was required because the VFR aircraft was at least a mile and a half away from the finals especially for the Runway 13L arrivals which both of these were. Apparently; this LOA does not provide that Controller/Traffic Watch protection. I admit I am not sure when that protection disappeared; however; I am now well aware that there is NO protection at all. Number 2- D10 used to restrict inbound traffic to 'at or above 2;500 until established on final' or some would use 'until the mixmaster' a local point of reference; which also provided built in protection. I was aware that some at D10 to include their Support Specialist believe that no VFR aircraft have any business in Bravo airspace; and have therefore discontinued this restriction. Some also say you can not put an 'at or above' or 'paper stop' restriction on any aircraft doing an approach.My recommendations are: 1) Make a decision: if VFR Traffic watch/or other VFR aircraft have no business in Bravo; then inform the Traffic Watch and all other VFR fixed wings; and write the LOA to reflect this attitude.2) Any LOA should be written (as before) to provide built in protection. Realign airspace if necessary. Most of the subject airspace is of no impact on DFW Tower.3) If VFR aircraft should be allowed in Bravo; then reinstitute the 'at or above' restriction by D10. It worked for 15 years before someone decided Bravo was not for VFR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.