Narrative:

Aircraft X was being vectored for an ILS runway 19L approach for a full stop. Aircraft Y was being vectored to follow aircraft X for a PAR approach to runway 19R. I turned aircraft X on a dogleg and cleared him for the ILS runway 19L approach and had him contact tower. Aircraft Y turned base about 8 miles in trail heading 100 and I gave control to the gca controller. I had some other traffic situations to fix while working the west sector airspace. About a minute later; I contacted the gca controller to reduce aircraft Y's airspeed as he turned final because his airspeed was 200 KIAS while the preceding aircraft X's airspeed was showing 100 KIAS about 2 miles prior to the final approach fix. I went and took care of some other traffic; and then I contacted the gca controller again and said if aircraft Y does not slow down; I will have to break him out. About another minute passed and when I observed aircraft X had reached the final approach fix and aircraft Y's airspeed was about 170 KIAS; I directed gca to break him out 'turn right heading 270 and maintain 2000'. It seemed like another minute passed before aircraft Y began his breakout. By that time; I was told I had lost separation which was 2.46 miles and 300 feet. When the pilot came over to my frequency; he asked for the reason for the breakout. I told him it was for overtaking traffic on the ILS to runway 19L airspeed 100 KIAS. The pilot said he had difficulty understanding the breakout instructions of the gca controller; confirming my suspicions for his delaying the breakout. Aircraft Y should have slowed to a final approach speed of about 110-120 KIAS but did not do that. Had he done so the first time; I would have been able to maintain separation on final. After further review of the gca transmissions; the controller had only instructed the aircraft to reduce speed 10 knots. I feel the gca controller should be responsible for maintaining his separation on final and if he cannot; then he should initiate the breakout back to the arrival controller. Our present procedures place all of the responsibility on the arrival controller. Normally the first thing gca tells the pilot on initial contact is to 'perform landing checks' which puts the aircraft at his 110-120 KIAS final approach speed. The trainee gca controller never gave those instructions. The faao 7110.65 does not address simultaneous ILS and PAR approaches to different runways; only ILS and ILS. If we had dual ILS approaches being conducted; my separation on final could have gone down to 2 miles. PAR is a precision approach also; but credit is not given in this scenario. My recommendation is perhaps a navy waiver of some sort to this paragraph to allow 2 miles separation as long as all of the other criteria are met like distance between center lines for the ILS and PAR are the same as the ILS/ILS criteria.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMM Approach Controller described loss of separation event with two successive military arrivals; the first on an ILS the second on a PAR; the reporter alleging GCA was slow to respond to the break out instructions.

Narrative: Aircraft X was being vectored for an ILS Runway 19L approach for a full stop. Aircraft Y was being vectored to follow Aircraft X for a PAR approach to Runway 19R. I turned Aircraft X on a dogleg and cleared him for the ILS Runway 19L approach and had him contact Tower. Aircraft Y turned base about 8 miles in trail heading 100 and I gave control to the GCA Controller. I had some other traffic situations to fix while working the West Sector Airspace. About a minute later; I contacted the GCA controller to reduce Aircraft Y's airspeed as he turned final because his airspeed was 200 KIAS while the preceding Aircraft X's airspeed was showing 100 KIAS about 2 miles prior to the final approach fix. I went and took care of some other traffic; and then I contacted the GCA Controller again and said if Aircraft Y does not slow down; I will have to break him out. About another minute passed and when I observed Aircraft X had reached the final approach fix and Aircraft Y's airspeed was about 170 KIAS; I directed GCA to break him out 'Turn right heading 270 and maintain 2000'. It seemed like another minute passed before Aircraft Y began his breakout. By that time; I was told I had lost separation which was 2.46 miles and 300 feet. When the pilot came over to my frequency; he asked for the reason for the breakout. I told him it was for overtaking traffic on the ILS to Runway 19L airspeed 100 KIAS. The pilot said he had difficulty understanding the breakout instructions of the GCA Controller; confirming my suspicions for his delaying the breakout. Aircraft Y should have slowed to a final approach speed of about 110-120 KIAS but did not do that. Had he done so the first time; I would have been able to maintain separation on final. After further review of the GCA transmissions; the controller had only instructed the aircraft to reduce speed 10 knots. I feel the GCA Controller should be responsible for maintaining his separation on final and if he cannot; then he should initiate the breakout back to the Arrival Controller. Our present procedures place all of the responsibility on the Arrival Controller. Normally the first thing GCA tells the pilot on initial contact is to 'Perform landing checks' which puts the aircraft at his 110-120 KIAS final approach speed. The trainee GCA Controller never gave those instructions. The FAAO 7110.65 does not address simultaneous ILS and PAR approaches to different runways; only ILS and ILS. If we had dual ILS approaches being conducted; my separation on final could have gone down to 2 miles. PAR is a precision approach also; but credit is not given in this scenario. My recommendation is perhaps a NAVY waiver of some sort to this paragraph to allow 2 miles separation as long as all of the other criteria are met like distance between center lines for the ILS and PAR are the same as the ILS/ILS criteria.

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.