Approach controller described confused event when tower changed sequence; allowed traffic pattern to...

Narrative:

Aircraft X; an MU2; was handed off from center northwest of ZZZ. The center called and said the aircraft was having problems but had not declared an emergency. There were 7 or 8 other aircraft inbound in the 10 minute time period after this aircraft. Aircraft X was cleared for a visual approach to runway xx and appeared to be making a normal approach to the runway. Aircraft X flew past runway xx and appeared to be turning final to runway xy. Local control called and said they were giving a C172 on final to runway xy a 360 degree turn. I told the tower to put the C172 on runway yy because there was a B737 following him to runway xy. Aircraft X overflew runway xy and turned northbound. Local control called and said he was putting aircraft X back on runway xx. By this time there were 7 or 8 aircraft within 12 miles of the airport inbound to runway xx; runway xy; and runway yy. Local control called and screamed for me to stop all traffic inbound to the airport. This was not possible. Aircraft X had continued so far northbound that he was a potential conflict with 2 other arrivals to runway xx. I do not know why the local controller did not simply assign aircraft X a heading and altitude and allow me to sequence him behind the other inbound traffic. Local control turned aircraft X back in to runway xx creating a conflict with aircraft Y. Local control called and screamed for me to turn aircraft X out. I turned aircraft Y northwestbound and assigned him an altitude. There did not appear to be required distance between the aircraft. After I turned aircraft Y northbound to follow traffic; he informed me he was close to emergency fuel. I told local control that aircraft Y was close to emergency fuel. Aircraft X was eventually handed back off to me and declared an emergency saying he was having control problems. To the best of my knowledge this was the only potential conflict during this time. However; the situation was very stressful and it is possible that there were other conflicts. The local controller did not seem to understand that approach control handles the sequence to the airport. This could all have been avoided if aircraft X had been assigned a missed approach and sequenced behind the other traffic.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Approach Controller described confused event when Tower changed sequence; allowed traffic pattern to extend outward; causing additional conflicts with subsequent arrivals.

Narrative: Aircraft X; an MU2; was handed off from Center northwest of ZZZ. The Center called and said the aircraft was having problems but had not declared an emergency. There were 7 or 8 other aircraft inbound in the 10 minute time period after this aircraft. Aircraft X was cleared for a visual approach to Runway XX and appeared to be making a normal approach to the runway. Aircraft X flew past Runway XX and appeared to be turning final to Runway XY. Local Control called and said they were giving a C172 on final to Runway XY a 360 degree turn. I told the Tower to put the C172 on Runway YY because there was a B737 following him to Runway XY. Aircraft X overflew Runway XY and turned northbound. Local Control called and said he was putting Aircraft X back on Runway XX. By this time there were 7 or 8 aircraft within 12 miles of the airport inbound to Runway XX; Runway XY; and Runway YY. Local Control called and screamed for me to stop all traffic inbound to the airport. This was not possible. Aircraft X had continued so far northbound that he was a potential conflict with 2 other arrivals to Runway XX. I do not know why the Local Controller did not simply assign Aircraft X a heading and altitude and allow me to sequence him behind the other inbound traffic. Local Control turned Aircraft X back in to Runway XX creating a conflict with Aircraft Y. Local Control called and screamed for me to turn Aircraft X out. I turned Aircraft Y northwestbound and assigned him an altitude. There did not appear to be required distance between the aircraft. After I turned Aircraft Y northbound to follow traffic; he informed me he was close to emergency fuel. I told Local Control that Aircraft Y was close to emergency fuel. Aircraft X was eventually handed back off to me and declared an emergency saying he was having control problems. To the best of my knowledge this was the only potential conflict during this time. However; the situation was very stressful and it is possible that there were other conflicts. The Local Controller did not seem to understand that Approach Control handles the sequence to the airport. This could all have been avoided if Aircraft X had been assigned a missed approach and sequenced behind the other traffic.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.

Attributes
ACN	823385
Time
Date	200903
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.TRACON
State Reference	US
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Mitsubishi Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach Local
Experience	Air Traffic Control Non Radar 2 Air Traffic Control Radar 9 Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 5
Events
Anomaly	Conflict Airborne Conflict Other Traffic Pattern Event

Approach controller described confused event when tower changed sequence; allowed traffic pattern to extend outward; causing additional conflicts with subsequent arrivals.