Local controller described traffic pattern event when one aircraft failed to comply with ATC instruc...

Attributes
ACN	834681
Time
Date	200905
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft Low Wing 1 Eng Fixed Gear
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	None
Flight Plan	None
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Challenger Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Local
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Supervisory 2 Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (mon) 0 Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 2 Flight Crew Total 10
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict NMAC Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Miss Distance	Horizontal 200 Vertical 200

Narrative:

Aircraft X in left closed traffic for touch and go; on left downwind abeam numbers sequenced number 3 to follow aircraft Y on right base to 2 mile final with touch and go traffic on runway. Aircraft X given several traffic calls on aircraft Y position while in the downwind aircraft X fails to spot traffic and was instructed to return to downwind from base leg. Aircraft X pilot continues to turn final in front of aircraft Y. Aircraft X was instructed to continue turn left 270 degrees to return downwind to follow aircraft Y. Aircraft X failed to take any instructions to avoid an imminent situation. Aircraft Y observed to stop descent on final; and radioed to tower responding to RA. Aircraft Y was given go-around for right traffic and canceled IFR. Aircraft X was then cleared for touch and go. Aircraft Y was then sequenced 2 follow a third aircraft and cleared to land behind the traffic; aircraft X was then sequenced 4 on left side. A qar was developed after a review of the tapes. The result was that the controller failed to use correct phraseology. The qar program is designed to help ATC facilities identify trends and shortcomings with procedures as a whole facility. Inaccurate accounting of facts will not produce correct results and superficially appears to be a misapplication of the program; where the focus becomes on individuals and not on trends. Clearly in my opinion when an aircraft operator fails to respond; or search for traffic; or follow a sequence in a traffic pattern. Air traffic has an obligation to report to FSDO the operator. By only using the qar program and looking at what controller did what wrong; air traffic is failing to help identify aircraft operators who may need to spend more time with an instructor pilot or be reviewed further.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Local Controller described traffic pattern event when one aircraft failed to comply with ATC instructions and caused a TCAS RA with another aircraft. A facility QAR review resulted in identifying the Controller's incorrect phraseology.

Narrative: Aircraft X in left closed traffic for touch and go; on left downwind abeam numbers sequenced number 3 to follow Aircraft Y on right base to 2 mile final with touch and go traffic on runway. Aircraft X given several traffic calls on Aircraft Y position while in the downwind Aircraft X fails to spot traffic and was instructed to return to downwind from base leg. Aircraft X pilot continues to turn final in front of Aircraft Y. Aircraft X was instructed to continue turn left 270 degrees to return downwind to follow Aircraft Y. Aircraft X failed to take any instructions to avoid an imminent situation. Aircraft Y observed to stop descent on final; and radioed to tower responding to RA. Aircraft Y was given go-around for right traffic and canceled IFR. Aircraft X was then cleared for touch and go. Aircraft Y was then sequenced 2 follow a third aircraft and cleared to land behind the traffic; Aircraft X was then sequenced 4 on left side. A QAR was developed after a review of the tapes. The result was that the controller failed to use correct phraseology. The QAR program is designed to help ATC facilities identify trends and shortcomings with procedures as a whole facility. Inaccurate accounting of facts will not produce correct results and superficially appears to be a misapplication of the program; where the focus becomes on individuals and not on trends. Clearly in my opinion when an aircraft operator fails to respond; or search for traffic; or follow a sequence in a traffic pattern. Air traffic has an obligation to report to FSDO the operator. By only using the QAR program and looking at what controller did what wrong; Air Traffic is failing to help identify aircraft operators who may need to spend more time with an instructor pilot or be reviewed further.

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.

Local controller described traffic pattern event when one aircraft failed to comply with ATC instructions and caused a TCAS RA with another aircraft. A facility qar review resulted in identifying the controller's incorrect phraseology.