Narrative:

Flm [front line manager] was giving a skills check on local position. Aircraft Y was on a right downwind VFR at 3;500 feet approximately midfield to approach end. Aircraft Y checked in on the frequency with aircraft X in sight. The developmental told aircraft Y caution wake turbulence RWY26L cleared to land. I advised the flm that 'shouldn't he be telling aircraft Y to maintain visual separation caution wake turbulence in addition giving positive control instruction and telling aircraft Y to pass behind the aircraft; if that's what is intended.' the flm seemed to disagree and also stated that at 3;500 feet there was no way they were going to turn ahead of aircraft X that was at 4NM final at the time. He also said that TRACON should have done their job and have issued it therefore we were not responsible for advising aircraft to maintain visual separation. Aircraft Y ended up turning base directly behind aircraft X and turned final about 1.5nm behind and was 500 feet above which degraded to 100-200 feet above (approximately) on short final. I later called approach supervisor's desk to ask them and verify responsibility for VFR aircraft and wake turbulence. To which they said since we (ZZZ) sequence VFR aircraft and are responsible to provide the separation. At this point I began filling out the report.previous to this issue; about 10-15 prior to the skill check; the developmental cleared a [carrier] for takeoff after being released for what I calculated 4 minutes. We are allotted 3 minutes for IFR release. So I asked the developmental what time they were released to verify and prevent an IFR aircraft departing outside an IFR release window. The flm turned around and aggressively waved their hands and said 'safety only!' I guess as in don't say anything unless planes are going to hit? I understand that training needs to be accomplished but I don't feel comfortable working a supervisory position where spot corrections are mandatory but unable to voice my concerns with the operation. I don't mind allowing time for the developmental to work or allowing time for the flm on position to wait to see if the developmental is going to correct a situation before stepping in to fix the issue; but the flm was just allowing the developmental to work without ensuring conflicts were getting resolved. I have spoken with the atm [air traffic manager] within the last week regarding previous safety concerns that supervisors should not be directly plugged in with a developmental during skill/certification checks. They should look into having controllers plugged in while flm's observe the position. There have been other issues within the last month among other flm and other skill/certification check operations. This doesn't appear to be an isolated event.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC Tower CIC; Developmental;and FLM reported issues that took place during a skill check.

Narrative: FLM [Front Line Manager] was giving a skills check on Local position. Aircraft Y was on a right downwind VFR at 3;500 feet approximately midfield to approach end. Aircraft Y checked in on the frequency with Aircraft X in sight. The Developmental told Aircraft Y caution wake turbulence RWY26L cleared to land. I advised the FLM that 'Shouldn't he be telling Aircraft Y to maintain visual separation caution wake turbulence in addition giving positive control instruction and telling Aircraft Y to pass behind the aircraft; if that's what is intended.' The FLM seemed to disagree and also stated that at 3;500 feet there was no way they were going to turn ahead of Aircraft X that was at 4NM final at the time. He also said that TRACON should have done their job and have issued it therefore we were not responsible for advising aircraft to maintain visual separation. Aircraft Y ended up turning base directly behind Aircraft X and turned final about 1.5nm behind and was 500 feet above which degraded to 100-200 feet above (approximately) on short final. I later called Approach Supervisor's desk to ask them and verify responsibility for VFR aircraft and wake turbulence. To which they said since we (ZZZ) sequence VFR aircraft and are responsible to provide the separation. At this point I began filling out the report.Previous to this issue; about 10-15 prior to the skill check; the Developmental cleared a [carrier] for takeoff after being released for what I calculated 4 minutes. We are allotted 3 minutes for IFR release. So I asked the Developmental what time they were released to verify and prevent an IFR aircraft departing outside an IFR release window. The FLM turned around and aggressively waved their hands and said 'Safety only!' I guess as in don't say anything unless planes are going to hit? I understand that training needs to be accomplished but I don't feel comfortable working a supervisory position where spot corrections are mandatory but unable to voice my concerns with the operation. I don't mind allowing time for the Developmental to work or allowing time for the FLM on position to wait to see if the Developmental is going to correct a situation before stepping in to fix the issue; but the FLM was just allowing the Developmental to work without ensuring conflicts were getting resolved. I have spoken with the ATM [Air Traffic Manager] within the last week regarding previous safety concerns that supervisors should not be directly plugged in with a developmental during skill/certification checks. They should look into having controllers plugged in while FLM's observe the position. There have been other issues within the last month among other FLM and other skill/certification check operations. This doesn't appear to be an isolated event.

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.