Narrative:

This report is being submitted two days late as I was unable to exit and save without losing what I had previously entered in the narrative section. Unfortunately this is my third time starting the narrative from the beginning.I was working the radar position in the tracab while a developmental was receiving a skill check on local combined with ground from their flm. Runway 13 was advertised on the ATIS; with good visibility and a wind of around 100 at 9 knots. I had three arrivals inbound: a VFR joining the ILS to runway 13; aircraft X; a VFR P28A inbound further out from the north; and another P28A IFR at 4;000 inbound from the southeast. Tower had vehicles on the runway who were painting lines and doing measuring; who had been periodically cleared on and off the runway for aircraft without issue. With aircraft Y; a P28A in the pattern on runway 13; the flm asked whether the vehicle or aircraft have priority for use of the runway. The developmental answered saying the aircraft had priority and the flm responded; 'no; the vehicles do;' and told the developmental to assign aircraft Y runway 02. Local also had a C172 inbound a few short miles out from the northwest and changed this aircraft's runway to 02 as well.the developmental and flm had a back and forth about why they were switching runways and how to make it happen. I asked over my shoulder if they wanted my BE23 on the ILS and the P28A from the north to continue for 13; and I did not receive any kind of firm answer from the flm. Something to the extent of; 'well.. Runway 13...' the BE23 and aircraft X were shipped to tower; sequenced for runway 13. The flm instructed the developmental to tell the BE23 to; 'abandon;' his approach and land on runway 02. There was some question about how to sequence the pattern P28A and the aircraft on the approach. The flm then took over the frequency and instructed aircraft X; the P28A inbound from the north to maneuver to enter the left downwind for runway 02. Aircraft X sounded unsure and ended up making a wide right 360 well west of the airport. There was a sequencing issue between the BE23 and the P28A in the pattern and the BE23 was told to go around. It was at this time my final P28A; IFR from the south east was approaching the airport; still expecting runway 13 as advertised. I asked the flm again which runway they wanted him to come in on; I was instructed runway 02 and accomplished the coordination. The P28A was cleared for the visual approach to runway 02 and shipped to tower. The flm; still working the frequency; was instructing aircraft X to enter left base. I could tell aircraft X who was two to three miles west of the airport was being set up to be number one in front of my IFR P28A inside of a five mile final. I could tell from the speed and position of the aircraft there was no way this was going to work. I told the flm this twice; and the second time there was an agreement.as the P28A in the pattern came back on the downwind; followed by the BE23 that had gone around; aircraft X had difficulty following instructions as the flm tried to now place aircraft X ahead of the P28A in the pattern. The pattern P28A turned base; then final; and passed aircraft X who was off his left wing on base; as the flm still tried to instruct aircraft X that they were number one for runway 02. When aircraft X finally got on final; the BE23 who was faster was turned in close behind him. When the P28A in the pattern who was now number one finally made it on the ground and began to turn off the runway; aircraft X was past the landing threshold and just about wheels down when the flm told aircraft X to go around. In this last period with three aircraft on final; there were around seven to ten separate collision alerts triggered by the ARTS; with at one point three aircraft airborne inside of a one mile final. I did not observe any vehicles occupying runway 13 at the time. When the next controller took over the local position; they were thanked by the pattern P28A for; 'getting us out of that fiasco;' to which he replied that it wasn't him.seeing this happen from the radar position; I got the impression the flm was trying to 'light a fire;' under the developmental by telling him not to use the active runway and to change the runway of the arriving aircraft. I feel the main reason this whole thing happened was a result of the developmental being told the vehicle measuring lines on the runway had priority over arriving aircraft; even itinerant IFR arrivals. I completely disagree with this as the airport has the ability to close the runway if needed; and there was no permanent or temporary agreement in place that our vehicles had any kind of priority. By not allowing four separate itinerant aircraft to land on the advertised runway (three from the northwest) they were kept in the air as a result of their runway change or going around. If they would have been allowed to land on 13 as they requested and were expecting; they would not have had much if any conflict with the P28A in right traffic for runway 02. They would have landed safely and that would have been the end of it. The vehicles could have vacated for a short few minutes as they had done previously without issue.I feel that the flm created an artificially difficult situation for the trainee by restricting the runway; which caused the traffic to get tied in a knot; which the flm was not able to untie when they took over the frequency. If the flm was going to intentionally make the flow more difficult (not a good idea in my opinion); they should have only allowed it to get to the point where they could have quickly and easily resolved the conflict when taking over. This was not accomplished. I worry about our pilots who come to rst for practice work and get caught up in a situation like this. It cannot be reassuring to hear two controller's voices on one frequency who both sound unsure of themselves. At some point I worry that our pilots may move their practice work to an uncontrolled airport in an effort to find better service and increased safety.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RST TRACAB Controller and an involved pilot reported of an unsafe situation where the pilot was told to turn base leg at their discretion. Pilot reported following traffic not in site. The pilot landed; but the aircraft it was supposed to follow was cutoff and had to go around.

Narrative: This report is being submitted two days late as I was unable to exit and save without losing what I had previously entered in the narrative section. Unfortunately this is my third time starting the narrative from the beginning.I was working the radar position in the TRACAB while a developmental was receiving a skill check on local combined with ground from their FLM. Runway 13 was advertised on the ATIS; with good visibility and a wind of around 100 at 9 knots. I had three arrivals inbound: a VFR joining the ILS to runway 13; Aircraft X; a VFR P28A inbound further out from the north; and another P28A IFR at 4;000 inbound from the southeast. Tower had vehicles on the runway who were painting lines and doing measuring; who had been periodically cleared on and off the runway for aircraft without issue. With Aircraft Y; a P28A in the pattern on runway 13; the FLM asked whether the vehicle or aircraft have priority for use of the runway. The developmental answered saying the aircraft had priority and the FLM responded; 'No; the vehicles do;' and told the developmental to assign Aircraft Y runway 02. Local also had a C172 inbound a few short miles out from the northwest and changed this aircraft's runway to 02 as well.The developmental and FLM had a back and forth about why they were switching runways and how to make it happen. I asked over my shoulder if they wanted my BE23 on the ILS and the P28A from the north to continue for 13; and I did not receive any kind of firm answer from the FLM. Something to the extent of; 'well.. runway 13...' The BE23 and Aircraft X were shipped to tower; sequenced for runway 13. The FLM instructed the developmental to tell the BE23 to; 'abandon;' his approach and land on runway 02. There was some question about how to sequence the pattern P28A and the aircraft on the approach. The FLM then took over the frequency and instructed Aircraft X; the P28A inbound from the north to maneuver to enter the left downwind for runway 02. Aircraft X sounded unsure and ended up making a wide right 360 well west of the airport. There was a sequencing issue between the BE23 and the P28A in the pattern and the BE23 was told to go around. It was at this time my final P28A; IFR from the south east was approaching the airport; still expecting runway 13 as advertised. I asked the FLM again which runway they wanted him to come in on; I was instructed runway 02 and accomplished the coordination. The P28A was cleared for the visual approach to runway 02 and shipped to tower. The FLM; still working the frequency; was instructing Aircraft X to enter left base. I could tell Aircraft X who was two to three miles west of the airport was being set up to be number one in front of my IFR P28A inside of a five mile final. I could tell from the speed and position of the aircraft there was no way this was going to work. I told the FLM this twice; and the second time there was an agreement.As the P28A in the pattern came back on the downwind; followed by the BE23 that had gone around; Aircraft X had difficulty following instructions as the FLM tried to now place Aircraft X ahead of the P28A in the pattern. The pattern P28A turned base; then final; and passed Aircraft X who was off his left wing on base; as the FLM still tried to instruct Aircraft X that they were number one for runway 02. When Aircraft X finally got on final; the BE23 who was faster was turned in close behind him. When the P28A in the pattern who was now number one finally made it on the ground and began to turn off the runway; Aircraft X was past the landing threshold and just about wheels down when the FLM told Aircraft X to go around. In this last period with three aircraft on final; there were around seven to ten separate collision alerts triggered by the ARTS; with at one point three aircraft airborne inside of a one mile final. I did not observe any vehicles occupying runway 13 at the time. When the next controller took over the local position; they were thanked by the pattern P28A for; 'getting us out of that fiasco;' to which he replied that it wasn't him.Seeing this happen from the radar position; I got the impression the FLM was trying to 'light a fire;' under the developmental by telling him not to use the active runway and to change the runway of the arriving aircraft. I feel the main reason this whole thing happened was a result of the developmental being told the vehicle measuring lines on the runway had priority over arriving aircraft; even itinerant IFR arrivals. I completely disagree with this as the airport has the ability to close the runway if needed; and there was no permanent or temporary agreement in place that our vehicles had any kind of priority. By not allowing four separate itinerant aircraft to land on the advertised runway (three from the northwest) they were kept in the air as a result of their runway change or going around. If they would have been allowed to land on 13 as they requested and were expecting; they would not have had much if any conflict with the P28A in right traffic for runway 02. They would have landed safely and that would have been the end of it. The vehicles could have vacated for a short few minutes as they had done previously without issue.I feel that the FLM created an artificially difficult situation for the trainee by restricting the runway; which caused the traffic to get tied in a knot; which the FLM was not able to untie when they took over the frequency. If the FLM was going to intentionally make the flow more difficult (not a good idea in my opinion); they should have only allowed it to get to the point where they could have quickly and easily resolved the conflict when taking over. This was not accomplished. I worry about our pilots who come to RST for practice work and get caught up in a situation like this. It cannot be reassuring to hear two controller's voices on one frequency who both sound unsure of themselves. At some point I worry that our pilots may move their practice work to an uncontrolled airport in an effort to find better service and increased safety.

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.