Narrative:

I was working the AR1/2/3 positions. A MD88 was on a right downwind for visual approach runway 35C; descending out of 9000 ft. I asked aircraft X to expedite descent since my plan was to put him ahead of base leg traffic at his 7 to 8 o'clock position that was already slowed. The pilot acknowledged for expeditious descent. I subsequently asked him out of 8000 ft if he could accept a base leg turn; which pilot replied that he needed another 1/2 mile. I waited 1 mile and turned him west and descended him to 4000 ft. Apparently the base leg aircraft; (can't remember his call sign); was aware of my plan and asked if that was aircraft X off his 3 o'clock position. Which I told him affirmative and he informed me he had aircraft X in sight. I slowed this aircraft to 170 KTS; and asked aircraft X to maintain his present speed which should have been 210 KTS. I turned aircraft X right to a heading of 320 to tighten him up and get him well ahead of his traffic that was going to follow him. I thought I did receive an acknowledgement for this heading. I held off on instructing the base leg traffic to follow aircraft X cause I was waiting for a little more spacing to develop; which should have occurred fairly quickly with the 320 heading assigned and the speeds assigned to both aircraft. After watching aircraft X's track I asked aircraft X to tighten up his rate of turn. In which the pilot replied no heading assigned we're on the 270 heading. I assigned the heading again and apparently at the same time aircraft X asked me if I would like him to go to runway 35R. This would have made things easier for the traffic that was to follow aircraft X; so I assigned him runway 35R. At the same time I looked at the runway status panel and observed that runway 35R was closed. Tower in an effort to help offered runway 35L for the traffic that was to follow aircraft X which I assigned to that aircraft; that would have made runway 35C available to aircraft X. I informed aircraft X that runway 35R was closed. At this time aircraft X was 5 miles south of the airport and requested to go around. I informed him that runway 35C was available and the traffic that was going to follow him was now going to runway 35L. However pilot elected to go around. Go around procedures were initiated for aircraft X and the aircraft came back around with no delay for runway 35C and landed with no further incident. Do not be in a hurry to 'stuff' a downwind arrival in front of a base leg arrival when the downwind is too high. Even though there may be a large 'hole' to put the downwind in ahead of the base leg; and the base leg has been slowed in airspeed; consider the altitude of the downwind. In this case the downwind was too high and had to extend downwind to lose altitude; which in turn caused the large 'hole' to decrease. It would have been better to simply extend the downwind out to follow the base leg and to descend behind the base leg. Yes; it would have made a large gap in spacing on the final but would have been more comfortable for the pilots and less work intensive for the controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: D10 Controller described a go-around event when trying to sequence a Runway 35C arrival ahead of an aircraft on wide base for the same runway; heading instructions were missed by the base aircraft causing the go-around.

Narrative: I was working the AR1/2/3 positions. A MD88 was on a right downwind for visual approach Runway 35C; descending out of 9000 FT. I asked Aircraft X to expedite descent since my plan was to put him ahead of base leg traffic at his 7 to 8 o'clock position that was already slowed. The pilot acknowledged for expeditious descent. I subsequently asked him out of 8000 FT if he could accept a base leg turn; which pilot replied that he needed another 1/2 mile. I waited 1 mile and turned him west and descended him to 4000 FT. Apparently the base leg aircraft; (can't remember his call sign); was aware of my plan and asked if that was Aircraft X off his 3 o'clock position. Which I told him affirmative and he informed me he had Aircraft X in sight. I slowed this aircraft to 170 KTS; and asked Aircraft X to maintain his present speed which should have been 210 KTS. I turned Aircraft X right to a heading of 320 to tighten him up and get him well ahead of his traffic that was going to follow him. I thought I did receive an acknowledgement for this heading. I held off on instructing the base leg traffic to follow Aircraft X cause I was waiting for a little more spacing to develop; which should have occurred fairly quickly with the 320 heading assigned and the speeds assigned to both aircraft. After watching Aircraft X's track I asked Aircraft X to tighten up his rate of turn. In which the pilot replied no heading assigned we're on the 270 heading. I assigned the heading again and apparently at the same time Aircraft X asked me if I would like him to go to Runway 35R. This would have made things easier for the traffic that was to follow Aircraft X; so I assigned him Runway 35R. At the same time I looked at the runway status panel and observed that Runway 35R was closed. Tower in an effort to help offered Runway 35L for the traffic that was to follow Aircraft X which I assigned to that aircraft; that would have made Runway 35C available to Aircraft X. I informed Aircraft X that Runway 35R was closed. At this time Aircraft X was 5 miles south of the airport and requested to go around. I informed him that Runway 35C was available and the traffic that was going to follow him was now going to Runway 35L. However pilot elected to go around. Go around procedures were initiated for Aircraft X and the aircraft came back around with no delay for Runway 35C and landed with no further incident. Do not be in a hurry to 'stuff' a downwind arrival in front of a base leg arrival when the downwind is too high. Even though there may be a large 'hole' to put the downwind in ahead of the base leg; and the base leg has been slowed in airspeed; consider the altitude of the downwind. In this case the downwind was too high and had to extend downwind to lose altitude; which in turn caused the large 'hole' to decrease. It would have been better to simply extend the downwind out to follow the base leg and to descend behind the base leg. Yes; it would have made a large gap in spacing on the final but would have been more comfortable for the pilots and less work intensive for the controller.

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.