Narrative:

I was working controller in charge when aircraft X declared they were going around from a visual approach on a 2 1/2 mile final for bur runway 8 due to altitude. Aircraft Y had just departed bur runway 15 and was climbing to the southwest just off of the departure end. The local controller asked aircraft X if they could accept a circle to runway 15 and they said they could. Aircraft X began a climb and circle northwest of bur for runway 15. 1 mile northwest of bur at approximately 3000 feet MSL aircraft X declared they could not make it and would like to be re-sequenced for another approach. The local controller told aircraft X to climb to 4000 feet and fly suggested heading of 270 as we have no procedure for this scenario and had not yet received instructions from socal TRACON. During this time I was coordinating with whp ATCT as aircraft X could enter their airspace and received approval. I then began to coordinate with socal valley sector for instructions to give to aircraft X. Aircraft X was continuing to climb into socal woodland sector airspace and as I was on the line with valley sector he coordinated with woodland sector for the re-sequence. Valley sector then advised me to give aircraft X to woodland sector and I coordinated that with the local controller who handed off and switched aircraft X to woodland sector. There was apparently a miscommunication as woodland sector thought that aircraft X was going to stay in the pattern at bur and be re-sequenced by bur.there is no set procedure for go-arounds at bur. Aircraft on an instrument approach are supposed to be given the published missed approach which puts them head on with any arrivals behind them. Bur is supposed to get climb out instructions from socal TRACON for these situations and they too have restrictions. Previous procedures for these situations were deemed unusable due to non-current mapping of the area. Visual approaches to bur that go-around are expected to be kept in the pattern by bur and re-sequenced by us; or coordinated with socal for instructions if this is not a practical solution if the pilot states they are unable. The above situation was unique in the fact that the aircraft was northwest of bur in a turn to the west-northwest when they requested the re-sequence. Not having the ability to vector this aircraft due to the new restrictions; and not having yet received instructions from socal leaves a major issue with what we can do with the aircraft; hence the suggested heading given by the local controller. Bur needs to have the ability returned to vector go-arounds to the previous headings (the SID heading) and previous altitude (the climb via except maintain altitude). This lack of procedure has caused several issues at bur and needs to be addressed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BUR Tower controllers report of a go-around that cannot be kept in the traffic pattern at the airport and is handed off to approach for sequencing.

Narrative: I was working CIC when Aircraft X declared they were going around from a visual approach on a 2 1/2 mile final for BUR runway 8 due to altitude. Aircraft Y had just departed BUR runway 15 and was climbing to the southwest just off of the departure end. The local controller asked Aircraft X if they could accept a circle to runway 15 and they said they could. Aircraft X began a climb and circle northwest of BUR for runway 15. 1 mile northwest of BUR at approximately 3000 feet MSL Aircraft X declared they could not make it and would like to be re-sequenced for another approach. The local controller told Aircraft X to climb to 4000 feet and fly suggested heading of 270 as we have no procedure for this scenario and had not yet received instructions from SoCal TRACON. During this time I was coordinating with WHP ATCT as Aircraft X could enter their airspace and received approval. I then began to coordinate with SoCal Valley Sector for instructions to give to Aircraft X. Aircraft X was continuing to climb into SoCal Woodland sector airspace and as I was on the line with Valley sector he coordinated with Woodland sector for the re-sequence. Valley sector then advised me to give Aircraft X to Woodland sector and I coordinated that with the local controller who handed off and switched Aircraft X to Woodland sector. There was apparently a miscommunication as Woodland sector thought that Aircraft X was going to stay in the pattern at BUR and be re-sequenced by BUR.There is no set procedure for go-arounds at BUR. Aircraft on an instrument approach are supposed to be given the published missed approach which puts them head on with any arrivals behind them. BUR is supposed to get climb out instructions from SOCAL TRACON for these situations and they too have restrictions. Previous procedures for these situations were deemed unusable due to non-current mapping of the area. Visual approaches to BUR that go-around are expected to be kept in the pattern by BUR and re-sequenced by us; or coordinated with SoCal for instructions if this is not a practical solution if the pilot states they are unable. The above situation was unique in the fact that the aircraft was northwest of BUR in a turn to the west-northwest when they requested the re-sequence. Not having the ability to vector this aircraft due to the new restrictions; and not having yet received instructions from SoCal leaves a major issue with what we can do with the aircraft; hence the suggested heading given by the local controller. BUR needs to have the ability returned to vector go-arounds to the previous headings (the SID heading) and previous altitude (the climb via except maintain altitude). This lack of procedure has caused several issues at BUR and needs to be addressed.

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.