Narrative:

We seem to have a procedural problem which not only affects tpa but many other approach controls across the country. We provide radar service to the lal airport, one of the busiest non federal control towers in the united states. For yrs, we have provided for separation of all IFR and VFR aircraft into and out of lal. Tpa recently had a facility evaluation in which it was noted that we are not to provide separation services to VFR practice approachs into lal. It was shown by the evaluations that we are not to 'clear' VFR practice aircraft for an instrument approach. We are only to inform VFR aircraft conducting practice instrument approachs of the following: 1) 'maintain VFR,' 2) 'separation services are not provided,' 3) 'practice approach approved.' in reality, we could use this phraseology and 'permit' 4, 5, 6, or more aircraft to do VFR practice approachs at lal all at the same time. We are taking 5 steps backwards with this procedure. We used to separate all IFR and VFR practice aircraft into lal. We used to call all VFR practice inbounds to lal tower. Today, I followed this procedure and did not call a VFR practice approach to the tower. The lal tower controllers were very surprised as they had 6 aircraft in the VFR traffic pattern. Lal tower broke the aircraft off of the approach to avoid a collision. Did we provide a service to these users? No.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR CLAIMS FACILITY USED TO PROVIDE SEPARATION BTWN IFR AND VFR PRACTICE ACFT INTO LAL AND CALL ALL VFR PRACTICE ACFT INBOUND TO THE TWR. RPTR ALLEGES THAT A RECENT FACILITY EVALUATION NOTED THAT THEY ARE NOT TO PROVIDE SEPARATION SVCS TO VFR PRACTICE APCHS. RPTR IMPLIED THAT VFR PRACTICE APCH ACFT ARE NOT TO BE CALLED TO THE TWR. RPTR STATED THAT PROC WAS USED, LCL CTLR SURPRISED AND HAD TO BREAK OFF APCH TO AVOID A COLLISION WITH PATTERN TFC.

Narrative: WE SEEM TO HAVE A PROCEDURAL PROB WHICH NOT ONLY AFFECTS TPA BUT MANY OTHER APCH CTLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WE PROVIDE RADAR SVC TO THE LAL ARPT, ONE OF THE BUSIEST NON FEDERAL CTL TWRS IN THE UNITED STATES. FOR YRS, WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR SEPARATION OF ALL IFR AND VFR ACFT INTO AND OUT OF LAL. TPA RECENTLY HAD A FACILITY EVALUATION IN WHICH IT WAS NOTED THAT WE ARE NOT TO PROVIDE SEPARATION SVCS TO VFR PRACTICE APCHS INTO LAL. IT WAS SHOWN BY THE EVALUATIONS THAT WE ARE NOT TO 'CLR' VFR PRACTICE ACFT FOR AN INST APCH. WE ARE ONLY TO INFORM VFR ACFT CONDUCTING PRACTICE INST APCHS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1) 'MAINTAIN VFR,' 2) 'SEPARATION SVCS ARE NOT PROVIDED,' 3) 'PRACTICE APCH APPROVED.' IN REALITY, WE COULD USE THIS PHRASEOLOGY AND 'PERMIT' 4, 5, 6, OR MORE ACFT TO DO VFR PRACTICE APCHS AT LAL ALL AT THE SAME TIME. WE ARE TAKING 5 STEPS BACKWARDS WITH THIS PROC. WE USED TO SEPARATE ALL IFR AND VFR PRACTICE ACFT INTO LAL. WE USED TO CALL ALL VFR PRACTICE INBOUNDS TO LAL TWR. TODAY, I FOLLOWED THIS PROC AND DID NOT CALL A VFR PRACTICE APCH TO THE TWR. THE LAL TWR CTLRS WERE VERY SURPRISED AS THEY HAD 6 ACFT IN THE VFR TFC PATTERN. LAL TWR BROKE THE ACFT OFF OF THE APCH TO AVOID A COLLISION. DID WE PROVIDE A SVC TO THESE USERS? NO.

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.