Narrative:

VFR weather 10 KT winds from the south [we were] landing/departing runways 20R and 20L. Tower controller in charge working ground control/clearance delivery/flight data combined. Aircraft X had previously reported back-taxiing at chena marina (AK28) for a south departure to the practice area (which is generally defined as the area 8-15 NM directly southeast of fai). Air carrier Y was holding short of runway 20R due to a B737 landing opposite direction on runway 2L. When the B737 cleared the runway the developmental checked to see if air carrier Y was on frequency and ready; because piper navajo traffic was inbound and the developmental wanted to get the departure out ahead of that arrival. Air carrier Y was on frequency; cleared for takeoff and informed of the navajo traffic; but was not informed of the traffic departing AK28. Immediately following that transmission; aircraft X reported airborne off AK28 and the developmental simply responded with 'roger'. At this point; as the trainer; I was unaware of the potential conflict between aircraft X and a C150; who was entering the right downwind from the southwest. The developmental issued the traffic regarding C150 to aircraft X and did not receive a response. At this point the developmental utilized a shout line to the west radar position in the TRACON to determine if they were in communication with aircraft X and determined that the TRACON was talking to aircraft X. I was aware that aircraft X's climb rate and air carrier Y's climb rate were such that they would potentially conflict; but I wanted to see what action the developmental would take to resolve the situation. Unfortunately; the developmental switched air carrier Y to the TRACON before realizing the traffic and did not issue a traffic advisory before air carrier Y switched frequencies. Aircraft X subsequently initiated a turn to the southeast and air carrier Y checked on with the TRACON indicating he was maneuvering to avoid traffic ahead. Both aircraft subsequently continued without further incident. Recommendation; many factors contributed to this event; each of which was preventable. 1. As a trainer I reportedly do not allow the developmental controllers enough 'leash' to provide appropriate learning opportunities. In an attempt to change my techniques as a trainer for the better; I was making a concerted effort to allow the developmental the opportunity to identify and resolve conflicts during the training session. Clearly; I was too relaxed and should have taken control of the position and resolved the conflict myself. 2. Aircraft X was never restricted in any way by the developmental controller. A widely practiced technique in the facility given this situation would have been to instruct aircraft X to 'remain west of fai' and then given a traffic advisory regarding air carrier Y's departure. I believe if this technique would have been applied correctly; it would have resolved the situation. Even if the developmental had simply issued a traffic advisory to aircraft X regarding air carrier Y's departure; instead of simply responding to the aircraft's airborne report with 'roger'; then perhaps aircraft X would have seen air carrier Y and the conflict resolved in that fashion. 3. Aircraft X switched to the departure frequency before actually being instructed to change frequencies. This increased the ambiguity and confusion of the situation. Had aircraft X remained on the local control frequency; then perhaps the developmental would have recognized his responsibility to resolve the conflict. While it was initially the responsibility of local control to issue a control instruction that would resolve the conflict between aircraft X and air carrier Y; with aircraft X on a different frequency it then becomes more ambiguous which controller is responsible for ensuring the conflict resolution. 4. The TRACON controller; the developmental; or I could have been more pro-active by determining during the land line coordination who was keeping aircraft X clear of air carrier Y. 5. A stand-alone tower controller in charge might have added the necessary eyes and ears to determine that a conflict resolution was taken.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAI Controller providing OJT described a conflict event between two departure aircraft; the reporter listing a number of actions that may have prevented the conflict.

Narrative: VFR weather 10 KT winds from the south [we were] landing/departing Runways 20R and 20L. Tower CIC working Ground Control/Clearance Delivery/Flight Data combined. Aircraft X had previously reported back-taxiing at Chena Marina (AK28) for a south departure to the practice area (which is generally defined as the area 8-15 NM directly southeast of FAI). Air Carrier Y was holding short of Runway 20R due to a B737 landing opposite direction on Runway 2L. When the B737 cleared the runway the Developmental checked to see if Air Carrier Y was on frequency and ready; because Piper Navajo traffic was inbound and the Developmental wanted to get the departure out ahead of that arrival. Air Carrier Y was on frequency; cleared for takeoff and informed of the Navajo traffic; but was not informed of the traffic departing AK28. Immediately following that transmission; Aircraft X reported airborne off AK28 and the Developmental simply responded with 'roger'. At this point; as the trainer; I was unaware of the potential conflict between Aircraft X and a C150; who was entering the right downwind from the southwest. The Developmental issued the traffic regarding C150 to Aircraft X and did not receive a response. At this point the Developmental utilized a shout line to the West RADAR position in the TRACON to determine if they were in communication with Aircraft X and determined that the TRACON was talking to Aircraft X. I was aware that Aircraft X's climb rate and Air Carrier Y's climb rate were such that they would potentially conflict; but I wanted to see what action the Developmental would take to resolve the situation. Unfortunately; the Developmental switched Air Carrier Y to the TRACON before realizing the traffic and did not issue a traffic advisory before Air Carrier Y switched frequencies. Aircraft X subsequently initiated a turn to the southeast and Air Carrier Y checked on with the TRACON indicating he was maneuvering to avoid traffic ahead. Both aircraft subsequently continued without further incident. Recommendation; many factors contributed to this event; each of which was preventable. 1. As a trainer I reportedly do not allow the Developmental Controllers enough 'leash' to provide appropriate learning opportunities. In an attempt to change my techniques as a trainer for the better; I was making a concerted effort to allow the Developmental the opportunity to identify and resolve conflicts during the training session. Clearly; I was too relaxed and should have taken control of the position and resolved the conflict myself. 2. Aircraft X was never restricted in any way by the Developmental Controller. A widely practiced technique in the facility given this situation would have been to instruct Aircraft X to 'remain west of FAI' and then given a traffic advisory regarding Air Carrier Y's departure. I believe if this technique would have been applied correctly; it would have resolved the situation. Even if the Developmental had simply issued a traffic advisory to Aircraft X regarding Air Carrier Y's departure; instead of simply responding to the aircraft's airborne report with 'roger'; then perhaps Aircraft X would have seen Air Carrier Y and the conflict resolved in that fashion. 3. Aircraft X switched to the departure frequency before actually being instructed to change frequencies. This increased the ambiguity and confusion of the situation. Had Aircraft X remained on the Local Control frequency; then perhaps the Developmental would have recognized his responsibility to resolve the conflict. While it was initially the responsibility of Local Control to issue a control instruction that would resolve the conflict between Aircraft X and Air Carrier Y; with Aircraft X on a different frequency it then becomes more ambiguous which controller is responsible for ensuring the conflict resolution. 4. The TRACON Controller; the Developmental; or I could have been more pro-active by determining during the land line coordination who was keeping Aircraft X clear of Air Carrier Y. 5. A stand-alone Tower CIC might have added the necessary eyes and ears to determine that a conflict resolution was taken.

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.