Narrative:

I was working ground control and controller in charge (controller in charge) combined. My colleague was working local control next to me. Aircraft X was inbound on their second approach to runway 10R. Aircraft X was on a second approach because on their first approach they were receiving a gear indicator light on the left main landing gear. Their second approach was an intended low pass so my colleague and I could try and get a visual and determine if their gear appeared down. Due to low traffic volume I told my colleague that I would assume his frequency and sent him out onto the tower catwalk with a pair of binoculars. It was dark outside at the time. The weather was very windy; rainy; with continuous lightning everywhere. I figured my colleague would get a better view from outside the tower. I was worried that the lights inside the tower cab would create too much of a reflection. When the aircraft was on about a 3 mile final I questioned the pilot if we could obtain visual on all 3 of his gear appearing down or if he just wanted to make right closed traffic on a visual approach to runway 10R and come back and land. The pilot replied in the affirmative. I called over the TRACON and let them know what the pilot's intentions were and they approved the operation.aircraft X went by the tower and my colleague and I were able to both confirm that all 3 of the aircraft's gear appeared down. I told the pilot that all 3 of his gear appeared down and that he could make right close traffic for runway 10R and was cleared to land. The pilot of aircraft X replied that he would now like to be vectored back around to shoot an ILS approach runway 10R. Without hesitation I told aircraft X to contact minneapolis departure. My colleague called the TRACON to advise them his intentions had changed and wanted to be vectored back for an ILS approach and that he would be calling him shortly. It was at this point that minneapolis approach told us we needed to issue aircraft X an immediate right turn to 250 degrees because of traffic he had vectored for a visual approach to runway 04 at msp.runway 04 at msp is never used so it was a shock to my colleague and me that there was traffic out there. We tried to reach aircraft X and issue the turn but were unable because the pilot had already switched frequencies. Minneapolis approach was able to turn aircraft X out of the way of aircraft Y with about 1.5 miles of separation.better communication between all parties. My colleague and I were task saturated with trying to assist the pilot with determining if his gear was down in the dark of night. We lost our scans and were not even aware that there was traffic being vectored for a visual approach to runway 4 at msp. I feel that if I had been better informed by TRACON that an aircraft was going to be executing an approach to runway 4 at msp that I would have done a better job in making sure aircraft X was in a turn to avoid at the departure end of runway 10R. We assumed that no traffic would be out in that area because aircraft are never vectored for runway 4 at msp. All parties could have communicated better for more positive control of both aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Tower Controller issued a frequency change and approved a missed approach for an emergency aircraft prior to coordinating with the TRACON. The TRACON had conflicting traffic for the missed approach procedure that the Tower Controller was not aware of.

Narrative: I was working Ground Control and Controller in Charge (CIC) combined. My colleague was working Local Control next to me. Aircraft X was inbound on their second approach to Runway 10R. Aircraft X was on a second approach because on their first approach they were receiving a gear indicator light on the left main landing gear. Their second approach was an intended low pass so my colleague and I could try and get a visual and determine if their gear appeared down. Due to low traffic volume I told my colleague that I would assume his frequency and sent him out onto the tower catwalk with a pair of binoculars. It was dark outside at the time. The weather was very windy; rainy; with continuous lightning everywhere. I figured my colleague would get a better view from outside the tower. I was worried that the lights inside the tower cab would create too much of a reflection. When the aircraft was on about a 3 mile final I questioned the pilot if we could obtain visual on all 3 of his gear appearing down or if he just wanted to make right closed traffic on a Visual Approach to Runway 10R and come back and land. The pilot replied in the affirmative. I called over the TRACON and let them know what the pilot's intentions were and they approved the operation.Aircraft X went by the tower and my colleague and I were able to both confirm that all 3 of the aircraft's gear appeared down. I told the pilot that all 3 of his gear appeared down and that he could make right close traffic for Runway 10R and was cleared to land. The pilot of Aircraft X replied that he would now like to be vectored back around to shoot an ILS Approach Runway 10R. Without hesitation I told Aircraft X to contact Minneapolis Departure. My colleague called the TRACON to advise them his intentions had changed and wanted to be vectored back for an ILS Approach and that he would be calling him shortly. It was at this point that Minneapolis Approach told us we needed to issue Aircraft X an immediate right turn to 250 degrees because of traffic he had vectored for a Visual Approach to Runway 04 at MSP.Runway 04 at MSP is never used so it was a shock to my colleague and me that there was traffic out there. We tried to reach Aircraft X and issue the turn but were unable because the pilot had already switched frequencies. Minneapolis Approach was able to turn Aircraft X out of the way of Aircraft Y with about 1.5 miles of separation.Better communication between all parties. My colleague and I were task saturated with trying to assist the pilot with determining if his gear was down in the dark of night. We lost our scans and were not even aware that there was traffic being vectored for a Visual Approach to Runway 4 at MSP. I feel that if I had been better informed by TRACON that an aircraft was going to be executing an approach to Runway 4 at MSP that I would have done a better job in making sure Aircraft X was in a turn to avoid at the departure end of Runway 10R. We assumed that no traffic would be out in that area because aircraft are never vectored for Runway 4 at MSP. All parties could have communicated better for more positive control of both aircraft.

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.