Laf controller describes a situation where the facility is short staffed and the controller departs ...

Narrative:

It was my second day back to work after being off from work for medical reasons for 3 weeks. The facility was short staffed due to one person calling out sick for the evening. Hold over time was issued; but the person on overtime was not cpc (certified professional controller); only ground certified. The atm (air traffic manager); who is still certified in the tower; was to provide a break for me. Shortly before the incident; I gave the ground controller a break. The atm then came up to the tower to look over a power outage issue in the cab. During this time the following events transpired. I had all positions combined; local; ground; flight data and controller in charge. I had 3 aircraft in the pattern doing touch and go's; 7 aircraft taxiing to the active runway for departure with two being IFR and 1 aircraft inbound that was IFR. (The IFR clearance for aircraft X had been issued by the ground controller that was on a break). The atm noticed that there was starting to be a buildup of traffic and called the ground controller off from break. The atm also noticed that an ATIS was needed and so made the recording for me since I was unable to at the time due to workload. Aircraft X called ready for departure from taxiway A2. I instructed aircraft X to hold short of runway 28 at A2 for landing traffic; plus there was an aircraft in front of aircraft X. He read back 'holding short A2'; but not the runway 28. Then aircraft Y called ready for departure also from taxiway A2. I instructed aircraft Y to hold short of runway 28 at A2 for landing traffic; aircraft Y was number one in sequence. He also read back 'holding short at A2'; but not the runway 28. Once the landing aircraft was no longer a factor I cleared aircraft Y for takeoff with a north departure. I then asked aircraft X their direction of flight; to which the reply was 'north'. Once aircraft Y turned on course I cleared aircraft X for takeoff with a north departure approved; assuming the aircraft was VFR. At some point the ground controller had returned to the tower; but we were unable to do a position briefing due to workload. During the takeoff roll for aircraft X; a position briefing was finally accomplished. Aircraft X then requested headings. Upon hearing the request I realized the aircraft was an IFR departure and contacted the approach facility to advise them of the deviation from procedure. I believe that being off from work for 3 weeks then being made to work all positions combined while staffing is available is bad practice. As noted above the atm was facility rated. The atm noticed that there was a buildup of traffic; but instead of assuming the ground position when there was a possibility; another controller was called that was unable to help prior to the incident. After the incident and after the ground controller assumed the position; I requested the atm take the controller in charge position to further de-combine during a busy time. The atm declined; yet remained in the tower for approximately 15 minutes. I was eventually relieved from local position by the atm after being on for over 2 hours 40 minutes. The atm; knowing the lack of staffing; was supposed to assist with coverage but did not adequately.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LAF Controller describes a situation where the facility is short staffed and the Controller departs two aircraft in sequence; thinking the second is VFR. The second aircraft is IFR and the Controller has a loss of separation.

Narrative: It was my second day back to work after being off from work for medical reasons for 3 weeks. The facility was short staffed due to one person calling out sick for the evening. Hold over time was issued; but the person on overtime was not CPC (Certified Professional Controller); only ground certified. The ATM (Air Traffic Manager); who is still certified in the tower; was to provide a break for me. Shortly before the incident; I gave the ground controller a break. The ATM then came up to the tower to look over a power outage issue in the cab. During this time the following events transpired. I had all positions combined; Local; Ground; Flight data and CIC. I had 3 aircraft in the pattern doing touch and go's; 7 aircraft taxiing to the active runway for departure with two being IFR and 1 aircraft inbound that was IFR. (The IFR clearance for Aircraft X had been issued by the ground controller that was on a break). The ATM noticed that there was starting to be a buildup of traffic and called the ground controller off from break. The ATM also noticed that an ATIS was needed and so made the recording for me since I was unable to at the time due to workload. Aircraft X called ready for departure from taxiway A2. I instructed Aircraft X to hold short of RWY 28 at A2 for landing traffic; plus there was an aircraft in front of Aircraft X. He read back 'Holding short A2'; but not the runway 28. Then Aircraft Y called ready for departure also from taxiway A2. I instructed Aircraft Y to hold short of runway 28 at A2 for landing traffic; Aircraft Y was number one in sequence. He also read back 'Holding short at A2'; but not the runway 28. Once the landing aircraft was no longer a factor I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff with a north departure. I then asked Aircraft X their direction of flight; to which the reply was 'North'. Once Aircraft Y turned on course I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff with a north departure approved; assuming the aircraft was VFR. At some point the ground controller had returned to the tower; but we were unable to do a position briefing due to workload. During the takeoff roll for Aircraft X; a position briefing was finally accomplished. Aircraft X then requested headings. Upon hearing the request I realized the aircraft was an IFR departure and contacted the approach facility to advise them of the deviation from procedure. I believe that being off from work for 3 weeks then being made to work all positions combined while staffing is available is bad practice. As noted above the ATM was facility rated. The ATM noticed that there was a buildup of traffic; but instead of assuming the ground position when there was a possibility; another controller was called that was unable to help prior to the incident. After the incident and after the ground controller assumed the position; I requested the ATM take the CIC position to further de-combine during a busy time. The ATM declined; yet remained in the tower for approximately 15 minutes. I was eventually relieved from local position by the ATM after being on for over 2 hours 40 minutes. The ATM; knowing the lack of staffing; was supposed to assist with coverage but did not adequately.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1238109
Time
Date	201502
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	LAF.Tower
State Reference	IN
Environment
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Small Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	Initial Climb
Route In Use	None
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft Low Wing 1 Eng Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	Initial Climb
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Flight Data / Clearance Delivery Ground Local Supervisor / CIC
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (mon) 6
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Track / Heading All Types

Laf controller describes a situation where the facility is short staffed and the controller departs two aircraft in sequence; thinking the second is VFR. The second aircraft is IFR and the controller has a loss of separation.