Narrative:

Aircraft X checked in from the southeast; and cleared to land runway 2. There was training on local control; and we all noticed aircraft Y that was on a downwind started to turn base and to final for runway 2 sooner than expected because initially it appeared aircraft X was number 1 in the sequence from the south. Looking at the speeds it appeared that aircraft Y was going to 'eat up' aircraft X quickly. As I keyed up the 'shout line' to call hcf; local control broke aircraft X out towards the rock quarry southeast of the airport at or above 2;500 feet; for an outbound helicopter; and to keep them east of the runway 2 final for aircraft Y. Aircraft Z was also joining final behind aircraft Y.when hcf answered; the controller said 'I'll call you back' before I could say anything. It appeared he now recognized the dilemma we were in with the sequence. Hcf called back and asked if we could turn aircraft X heading 180 and send back to him; I told him that we already had aircraft X breaking off to the rock quarry to sequence behind aircraft Y; and if he could slow down aircraft Z to give us some room. He insisted that we give aircraft X back to him. Aircraft X was entering our airspace already; and I told him that we'll keep him and work it out. The hcf controller responded; 'aircraft Z's not going to slow down; thank you.'local control brought aircraft X number 2 over the airport midfield to enter left downwind to runway 5 with a short approach to land after aircraft Y and stay ahead of aircraft Z. I believe local control also slowed aircraft Z to ensure our separation.1) the sequence was not clear and was not going to work as it was given. 2) in recovery; although the approach controller attempted to take back aircraft X; he refused to slow down aircraft Z to help us out. We could not figure out why not; there wasn't any aircraft behind aircraft Z. With the heading 180; we also didn't want to 'bust' the MVA reference recent events. We left the option open to keep aircraft X on the downwind and control his turn to land after aircraft Z if need be. [Need] better planning by hcf approach.if tower is helping fix hcf's sequence or lack thereof; approach should be willing to help within their means. An unsafe sequence that was being fixed could have become an unsafe situation again with the approach controller's refusal to slow down aircraft Z for no good reason. Many problems have been coming up with this particular controller; and it seems as though nothing is being done about it.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Maui Tower controllers reported an airborne conflict resulting from inadequate sequencing.

Narrative: Aircraft X checked in from the southeast; and cleared to land Runway 2. There was training on LC; and we all noticed Aircraft Y that was on a downwind started to turn base and to final for Runway 2 sooner than expected because initially it appeared Aircraft X was Number 1 in the sequence from the south. Looking at the speeds it appeared that Aircraft Y was going to 'eat up' Aircraft X quickly. As I keyed up the 'shout line' to call HCF; LC broke Aircraft X out towards the Rock Quarry southeast of the airport at or above 2;500 feet; for an outbound helicopter; and to keep them east of the Runway 2 final for Aircraft Y. Aircraft Z was also joining final behind Aircraft Y.When HCF answered; the controller said 'I'll call you back' before I could say anything. It appeared he now recognized the dilemma we were in with the sequence. HCF called back and asked if we could turn Aircraft X heading 180 and send back to him; I told him that we already had Aircraft X breaking off to the Rock Quarry to sequence behind Aircraft Y; and if he could slow down Aircraft Z to give us some room. He insisted that we give Aircraft X back to him. Aircraft X was entering our airspace already; and I told him that we'll keep him and work it out. The HCF controller responded; 'Aircraft Z's not going to slow down; thank you.'LC brought Aircraft X Number 2 over the airport midfield to enter left downwind to Runway 5 with a short approach to land after Aircraft Y and stay ahead of Aircraft Z. I believe LC also slowed Aircraft Z to ENSURE our separation.1) The sequence was not clear and was not going to work as it was given. 2) In recovery; although the Approach Controller attempted to take back Aircraft X; he refused to slow down Aircraft Z to help us out. We could not figure out why not; there wasn't any aircraft behind Aircraft Z. With the Heading 180; we also didn't want to 'bust' the MVA reference recent events. We left the option open to keep Aircraft X on the downwind and control his turn to land after Aircraft Z if need be. [Need] better planning by HCF Approach.If Tower is helping fix HCF's sequence or lack thereof; Approach should be willing to help within their means. An unsafe sequence that was being fixed could have become an unsafe situation again with the Approach Controller's refusal to slow down Aircraft Z for no good reason. Many problems have been coming up with this particular controller; and it seems as though nothing is being done about it.

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.