Narrative:

Small aircraft X departed runway 7 and was issued 010 heading, however, the aircraft turned right. The tower developmental noted the error and turned the aircraft back to the left heading 010. Aircraft west following on the ILS was issued the same turn, 010, after he passed beyond aircraft X's track as observed on the tower BRITE. The radar developmental's xmissions were being monitored on the gonset set and she issued 240 to small aircraft X for left downwind ILS 7 approach. When I glanced up at the BRITE again, after commuter Y called, and X and Y were 3 mi apart at 2300 MSL, the 2 aircraft passed at 2 mi laterally with aircraft Y descending through 1700' MSL. Moments later the developmental's backer turned small aircraft X northwest as it was converging with military aircraft Z also at 2300 MSL, which was being vectored to intercept the localizer about 5 mi from the outer marker. In discussing the incident with the radar developmental and the backer, the backer had not realized the first situation but had the second, and had taken control to provide separation. The developmental had not noticed the first situation and felt the backer had overreacted and separation would have been adequate. In further discussion with the backer, he felt that he was accomplishing nothing in the training as the trainee was not receptive. Furthermore, she was operating at the fullest capacity and would get no better. Note: the backer has requested that he not train him further. Additionally, a year ago he had recommended her for certification on radar and then withdrew the recommendation when her performance did not improve, and her radar training was subsequently terminated. Later, she was reinstated in the training program on an eeo appeal. She can't handle the volume/complexity and should be transferred to a less busy facility.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRAINEE ON APCH CTL HAD LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION BETWEEN ACFT X AND Y, AND THEN ALMOST LOST SEPARATION BETWEEN X AND Z. OPERATIONAL ERROR.

Narrative: SMA X DEPARTED RWY 7 AND WAS ISSUED 010 HDG, HOWEVER, THE ACFT TURNED RIGHT. THE TWR DEVELOPMENTAL NOTED THE ERROR AND TURNED THE ACFT BACK TO THE LEFT HDG 010. ACFT W FOLLOWING ON THE ILS WAS ISSUED THE SAME TURN, 010, AFTER HE PASSED BEYOND ACFT X'S TRACK AS OBSERVED ON THE TWR BRITE. THE RADAR DEVELOPMENTAL'S XMISSIONS WERE BEING MONITORED ON THE GONSET SET AND SHE ISSUED 240 TO SMA X FOR LEFT DOWNWIND ILS 7 APCH. WHEN I GLANCED UP AT THE BRITE AGAIN, AFTER COMMUTER Y CALLED, AND X AND Y WERE 3 MI APART AT 2300 MSL, THE 2 ACFT PASSED AT 2 MI LATERALLY WITH ACFT Y DESCENDING THROUGH 1700' MSL. MOMENTS LATER THE DEVELOPMENTAL'S BACKER TURNED SMA X NW AS IT WAS CONVERGING WITH MIL ACFT Z ALSO AT 2300 MSL, WHICH WAS BEING VECTORED TO INTERCEPT THE LOC ABOUT 5 MI FROM THE OUTER MARKER. IN DISCUSSING THE INCIDENT WITH THE RADAR DEVELOPMENTAL AND THE BACKER, THE BACKER HAD NOT REALIZED THE FIRST SITUATION BUT HAD THE SECOND, AND HAD TAKEN CONTROL TO PROVIDE SEPARATION. THE DEVELOPMENTAL HAD NOT NOTICED THE FIRST SITUATION AND FELT THE BACKER HAD OVERREACTED AND SEPARATION WOULD HAVE BEEN ADEQUATE. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE BACKER, HE FELT THAT HE WAS ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING IN THE TRAINING AS THE TRAINEE WAS NOT RECEPTIVE. FURTHERMORE, SHE WAS OPERATING AT THE FULLEST CAPACITY AND WOULD GET NO BETTER. NOTE: THE BACKER HAS REQUESTED THAT HE NOT TRAIN HIM FURTHER. ADDITIONALLY, A YEAR AGO HE HAD RECOMMENDED HER FOR CERTIFICATION ON RADAR AND THEN WITHDREW THE RECOMMENDATION WHEN HER PERFORMANCE DID NOT IMPROVE, AND HER RADAR TRAINING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TERMINATED. LATER, SHE WAS REINSTATED IN THE TRAINING PROGRAM ON AN EEO APPEAL. SHE CAN'T HANDLE THE VOLUME/COMPLEXITY AND SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO A LESS BUSY FAC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.