Narrative:

I opened up final west in preparation for an arrival rush. WX began to rapidly deteriorate; but the briefing I got from the south radar controller in training did not indicate the WX and turbulence were factors. I soon found out they were with virtually my first sequence! I observed a 12 mi interval on final and decided I would 'stuff' the B737-400 into the hole between heavies. The south side feeder was not issuing speed restrs and aircraft came to me very fast. I immediately issued 180 KTS to the involved aircraft to match speeds and maintain spacing. The first B747 I already switched to tower by the FAF. I turned the B737 onto final around 7 mi in-trail; knowing separation would compress inside the FAF. I had the B737 maintain 180 KTS to the FAF and; although the preceding heavy B747 was showing 120 KTS with 1 mi or so to cross the threshold; I judged I would still have the required 5 mi at touchdown. Therefore; I switched the B737 to the tower on a 6 mi final. Tower broke out the B737 due to apparent overtake on preceding heavy. Review revealed proper separation as the preceding aircraft crossed the threshold; however; breakout instructions had already been issued. I re-sequenced the B737 as the pilots questioned the breakout -- so did I. In the end; I'd like to state that yes; it was a 'squeaker;' but our tower's policy of quality assurance review; every go around and breakout gives the reviewers the ability to not monitor service; but try to hang controllers with 'deals.' I got lucky. 1/10 of a mi closer and I'd be decertified! What incentive do we (or I) have to run a tight; efficient final? None.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH CTLR AT ANC VECTORED A B737 TO FINAL APCH BTWN 2 B747'S IN IMC. THE B737 WAS ISSUED A GAR BY THE TWR CUE TO THE CLOSENESS TO THE FIRST B747 AND RE-SEQUENCED. NO LOSS OF SEPARATION OCCURRED.

Narrative: I OPENED UP FINAL W IN PREPARATION FOR AN ARR RUSH. WX BEGAN TO RAPIDLY DETERIORATE; BUT THE BRIEFING I GOT FROM THE S RADAR CTLR IN TRAINING DID NOT INDICATE THE WX AND TURB WERE FACTORS. I SOON FOUND OUT THEY WERE WITH VIRTUALLY MY FIRST SEQUENCE! I OBSERVED A 12 MI INTERVAL ON FINAL AND DECIDED I WOULD 'STUFF' THE B737-400 INTO THE HOLE BTWN HEAVIES. THE S SIDE FEEDER WAS NOT ISSUING SPD RESTRS AND ACFT CAME TO ME VERY FAST. I IMMEDIATELY ISSUED 180 KTS TO THE INVOLVED ACFT TO MATCH SPDS AND MAINTAIN SPACING. THE FIRST B747 I ALREADY SWITCHED TO TWR BY THE FAF. I TURNED THE B737 ONTO FINAL AROUND 7 MI IN-TRAIL; KNOWING SEPARATION WOULD COMPRESS INSIDE THE FAF. I HAD THE B737 MAINTAIN 180 KTS TO THE FAF AND; ALTHOUGH THE PRECEDING HVY B747 WAS SHOWING 120 KTS WITH 1 MI OR SO TO CROSS THE THRESHOLD; I JUDGED I WOULD STILL HAVE THE REQUIRED 5 MI AT TOUCHDOWN. THEREFORE; I SWITCHED THE B737 TO THE TWR ON A 6 MI FINAL. TWR BROKE OUT THE B737 DUE TO APPARENT OVERTAKE ON PRECEDING HVY. REVIEW REVEALED PROPER SEPARATION AS THE PRECEDING ACFT CROSSED THE THRESHOLD; HOWEVER; BREAKOUT INSTRUCTIONS HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED. I RE-SEQUENCED THE B737 AS THE PLTS QUESTIONED THE BREAKOUT -- SO DID I. IN THE END; I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT YES; IT WAS A 'SQUEAKER;' BUT OUR TWR'S POLICY OF QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW; EVERY GAR AND BREAKOUT GIVES THE REVIEWERS THE ABILITY TO NOT MONITOR SVC; BUT TRY TO HANG CTLRS WITH 'DEALS.' I GOT LUCKY. 1/10 OF A MI CLOSER AND I'D BE DECERTIFIED! WHAT INCENTIVE DO WE (OR I) HAVE TO RUN A TIGHT; EFFICIENT FINAL? NONE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.