Narrative:

While monitoring a cpc-it in local control and the military flights were inbound; meaning traffic levels were going to increase significantly and departure holes would also be fewer in between. A flight of 3 fighters VFR doing an instrument approach a mile in trail of each other. At 5/6 mile final cpc-it put aircraft X on the hold and exchanged traffic correctly. When the previous landing fighter cleared the runway; aircraft X was cleared for immediate takeoff while the fighter flight was 3/4 mile final. Being that the fighter flight was tagged that he wanted to stay in the closed traffic pattern; and during his clearance he acknowledged right traffic after his option; the risk involved with departing aircraft X were minimal and we would have our 6;000ft and airborne required separation. If we didn't; we could send around the first fighter and put in right closed anyway. The other two fighters in trail were tagged up to land; they ended up not being full stops either.very late in the upwind a fighter requested a specific entry which meant he would fly heading 300 degrees climbing 6;000. This was a direct conflict with aircraft X who was a mile off the departure and climbing also on a 300 heading. Tus no longer is allowed to have a second heading of 280 without approval from approach control which would have de-conflicted this incident immediately. The cpc-it told the fighter she thought he wanted closed; unable for traffic and told him to do right closed traffic. The fighter came back with he wanted the specific reentry. Cpc-it was very stern with her next call and said unable for traffic straight ahead. Turn right now. The fighter again did not comply with the instruction and kept going at a high rate of speed towards aircraft X. I then keyed up and said fighter unable told him to pull closed and tried to give a traffic alert; but at this point he turned himself to a 280 like we used to have; then a 300; then cranked it to right closed. I was lost in words trying to pry him away from aircraft X after he cut left; then right.later after pilot called the tower; we found out that apparently fighter 1 had radio issues; and fighter 2 who was a mile in trail of him was doing the radio work for him. That was extremely dangerous and no way staying in the pattern was a safe idea. We never were told of the radio issues.now; the facility management seems to feel this was all caused by a 'squeeze play' which is not fair or correct. We had 6000 ft and airborne easy. We took into account the aircraft characteristics of a corporate jet; and the right closed traffic 'out'. In no way could any of us predicted the noncompliance of the fighter which caught aircraft X two miles off the departure end. Management trying to enforce a knee jerk rule of no take off clearances issued within 5 mile final had nothing to do with this scenario; and instead of having the controllers back on a noncompliant pilot; it has turned into we unsafely launched aircraft X in front of a fighter which was tagged pattern and acknowledged staying in the pattern.I had visual on both aircraft at all times. The fighter was behind and lower than aircraft X. If any aircraft has radio problems; they should not be allowed to stay in the pattern while their wingman does all the radio work for them. That is dangerous.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TUS Tower Local Control Instructor reported an unsafe operation due to an arrival that did not have an operating radio and the decision by the pilot not to turn as instructed by ATC or advise ATC of the radio problem.

Narrative: While monitoring a CPC-IT in local control and the military flights were inbound; meaning traffic levels were going to increase significantly and departure holes would also be fewer in between. A flight of 3 fighters VFR doing an instrument approach a mile in trail of each other. At 5/6 mile final CPC-IT put Aircraft X on the hold and exchanged traffic correctly. When the previous landing fighter cleared the runway; Aircraft X was cleared for immediate takeoff while the fighter flight was 3/4 mile final. Being that the fighter flight was tagged that he wanted to stay in the closed traffic pattern; and during his clearance he acknowledged right traffic after his option; the risk involved with departing Aircraft X were minimal and we would have our 6;000ft and airborne required separation. If we didn't; we could send around the first fighter and put in right closed anyway. The other two fighters in trail were tagged up to land; they ended up not being full stops either.Very late in the upwind a fighter requested a specific entry which meant he would fly heading 300 degrees climbing 6;000. This was a direct conflict with Aircraft X who was a mile off the departure and climbing also on a 300 heading. TUS no longer is allowed to have a second heading of 280 without approval from approach control which would have de-conflicted this incident immediately. The CPC-IT told the fighter she thought he wanted closed; unable for traffic and told him to do right closed traffic. The fighter came back with HE WANTED THE SPECIFIC REENTRY. CPC-IT was very stern with her next call and said UNABLE FOR TRAFFIC STRAIGHT AHEAD. TURN RIGHT NOW. The fighter again did not comply with the instruction and kept going at a high rate of speed towards Aircraft X. I then keyed up and said FIGHTER UNABLE told him to pull closed and tried to give a traffic alert; but at this point he turned himself to a 280 like we used to have; then a 300; then cranked it to right closed. I was lost in words trying to pry him away from Aircraft X after he cut left; then right.Later after pilot called the tower; we found out that apparently Fighter 1 had radio issues; and Fighter 2 who was a mile in trail of him was doing the radio work for him. That was extremely dangerous and no way staying in the pattern was a safe idea. We never were told of the radio issues.Now; the facility management seems to feel this was all caused by a 'squeeze play' which is not fair or correct. We had 6000 ft and airborne easy. We took into account the aircraft characteristics of a corporate jet; and the right closed traffic 'out'. In no way could any of us predicted the noncompliance of the fighter which caught Aircraft X two miles off the departure end. Management trying to enforce a knee jerk rule of no take off clearances issued within 5 mile final had nothing to do with this scenario; and instead of having the controllers back on a noncompliant pilot; it has turned into we unsafely launched Aircraft X in front of a fighter which was tagged pattern and acknowledged staying in the pattern.I had visual on both aircraft at all times. The fighter was behind and lower than Aircraft X. If any aircraft has radio problems; they should not be allowed to stay in the pattern while their wingman does all the radio work for them. That is dangerous.

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.