Narrative:

Small aircraft X at runway 26 release by gfk approach. Then approach cancelled release and local control was not notified. Small aircraft X released runway 26 with small aircraft Y on final runway 17R. Gfk approach called and asked if tower let him (small aircraft X) go, flight data assumed he was going VFR. No actions were taken as at this time aircraft was not on frequency. No evasive actions required. Contributing factors: lack of proper strip marking by flight data. Procedure not followed reference placement of strips. Local control assuming that aircraft was still released. Local control assuming that visibility sep was being applied because of coordination overheard by flight data. Background noise in the cabin at the time. Lengthy delays for IFR aircraft from approach control. Ways to prevent situation from happening: revise local strip marking. Change procedure for local coordination (visibility icss equipment). Create/initiate cabin coordination position. Improve control-in-charge training. Improve over the shoulder process to include developmental that are checked out in a control position so the length of time between evaluations isn't so long and increase the frequency of over the shoulders. Follow up with meeting/discussion about new procedures. Comprehensive explanation of changes before they go into effect and then improve the quality assurance so the level of proficiency is maintained in all employees. Have approach control let the tower use the rules available to improve the service to the pilots. Increase the knowledge of he local (student) pilots to the reason for long delays are with the IFR facility. Supplemental information from acn 139877. I work in a level ii VFR ATC tower served by a military approach control. On this afternoon I was working flight data, which is split off from ground control as often as staffing permits. It is my job to write clearance and inbnds and get IFR releases from the approach control. Small aircraft X was at runway 26 for some local IFR work. I called and got a release of runway heading from approach control. I also copied an inbound on an small aircraft Y who was on a VOR approach to runway 17R. About two min later approach called back and asked if small aircraft X could be off in 35-40 seconds. Due to traffic on final for runway 26, I said no. Approach then said hold for release for small aircraft X. This was then verbally coordination, but not on a recorded line, with the local controller. He then apparently forgot or doesn't remember the coordination ever happening. He cleared small aircraft X for takeoff. Just a few seconds before this small aircraft Y checked on frequency 5 mi final. By the time small aircraft X was through the intersection about 2 mi of sep existed and the result is an operational error. Had I used the icss and put my coordination on tape I would not have been involved in the operational error.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN IFR SMA DEP WITHOUT A RELEASE FROM DEP CTL WHILE ANOTHER IFR SMA WAS ON FINAL APCH.

Narrative: SMA X AT RWY 26 RELEASE BY GFK APCH. THEN APCH CANCELLED RELEASE AND LCL CTL WAS NOT NOTIFIED. SMA X RELEASED RWY 26 WITH SMA Y ON FINAL RWY 17R. GFK APCH CALLED AND ASKED IF TWR LET HIM (SMA X) GO, FLT DATA ASSUMED HE WAS GOING VFR. NO ACTIONS WERE TAKEN AS AT THIS TIME ACFT WAS NOT ON FREQ. NO EVASIVE ACTIONS REQUIRED. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: LACK OF PROPER STRIP MARKING BY FLT DATA. PROC NOT FOLLOWED REFERENCE PLACEMENT OF STRIPS. LCL CTL ASSUMING THAT ACFT WAS STILL RELEASED. LCL CTL ASSUMING THAT VIS SEP WAS BEING APPLIED BECAUSE OF COORD OVERHEARD BY FLT DATA. BACKGROUND NOISE IN THE CABIN AT THE TIME. LENGTHY DELAYS FOR IFR ACFT FROM APCH CTL. WAYS TO PREVENT SITUATION FROM HAPPENING: REVISE LCL STRIP MARKING. CHANGE PROC FOR LCL COORD (VIS ICSS EQUIP). CREATE/INITIATE CABIN COORD POS. IMPROVE CTL-IN-CHARGE TRNING. IMPROVE OVER THE SHOULDER PROCESS TO INCLUDE DEVELOPMENTAL THAT ARE CHKED OUT IN A CTL POS SO THE LENGTH OF TIME BTWN EVALUATIONS ISN'T SO LONG AND INCREASE THE FREQ OF OVER THE SHOULDERS. FOLLOW UP WITH MEETING/DISCUSSION ABOUT NEW PROCS. COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF CHANGES BEFORE THEY GO INTO EFFECT AND THEN IMPROVE THE QUALITY ASSURANCE SO THE LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY IS MAINTAINED IN ALL EMPLOYEES. HAVE APCH CTL LET THE TWR USE THE RULES AVAILABLE TO IMPROVE THE SVC TO THE PLTS. INCREASE THE KNOWLEDGE OF HE LCL (STUDENT) PLTS TO THE REASON FOR LONG DELAYS ARE WITH THE IFR FAC. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 139877. I WORK IN A LEVEL II VFR ATC TWR SERVED BY A MIL APCH CTL. ON THIS AFTERNOON I WAS WORKING FLT DATA, WHICH IS SPLIT OFF FROM GND CTL AS OFTEN AS STAFFING PERMITS. IT IS MY JOB TO WRITE CLRNC AND INBNDS AND GET IFR RELEASES FROM THE APCH CTL. SMA X WAS AT RWY 26 FOR SOME LCL IFR WORK. I CALLED AND GOT A RELEASE OF RWY HDG FROM APCH CTL. I ALSO COPIED AN INBND ON AN SMA Y WHO WAS ON A VOR APCH TO RWY 17R. ABOUT TWO MIN LATER APCH CALLED BACK AND ASKED IF SMA X COULD BE OFF IN 35-40 SECS. DUE TO TFC ON FINAL FOR RWY 26, I SAID NO. APCH THEN SAID HOLD FOR RELEASE FOR SMA X. THIS WAS THEN VERBALLY COORD, BUT NOT ON A RECORDED LINE, WITH THE LCL CTLR. HE THEN APPARENTLY FORGOT OR DOESN'T REMEMBER THE COORD EVER HAPPENING. HE CLRED SMA X FOR TKOF. JUST A FEW SECS BEFORE THIS SMA Y CHKED ON FREQ 5 MI FINAL. BY THE TIME SMA X WAS THROUGH THE INTXN ABOUT 2 MI OF SEP EXISTED AND THE RESULT IS AN OPERROR. HAD I USED THE ICSS AND PUT MY COORD ON TAPE I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE OPERROR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.