Training controller and his student report a loss of separation incident resulting in a go around du...

Narrative:

I was training on finals on the freeway sector. I took the radar handoff on air carrier X who was descending via the EAGUL4 arrival runway 26 transition. When I took the radar hand off on air carrier Y; I saw that they were about 4 miles in-trail. Air carrier Y was also descending via the EAGUL4 arrival. I watched to make sure that air carrier Y was slowing to a similar speed as air carrier X and noticed that air carrier Y was indeed slowing down. I cleared air carrier X for a visual approach and noticed that air carrier Y was still showing a faster speed than air carrier X (I assumed that the speed difference was from the altitude difference and that the airplane was slowing more than it actually was). After I cleared air carrier Y for a visual approach I went back to slow him down further. The speed still was in transition and I felt it was not going to be enough to hold minimal separation. (A square turn to final approach course was not an option since there was an aircraft on opposite base and I felt air carrier Y would overshoot the localizer). Then I gave air carrier Y a ten degree turn to push his turn on final further behind air carrier X. My ojti asked air carrier Y if he had the air carrier X in-sight and air carrier Y acknowledged that he did. We used visual separation to clear air carrier Y and still reduced his speed to 150 KTS since air carrier Y's speed was still showing faster. Then I shipped air carrier Y to the tower. Air carrier Y thereafter became a go-around and subsequent investigation. I was notified that we had lost minimal separation outside 10 miles of phx. I am unsure exactly what point the two aircraft lost separation; if it was before or after I tried to maintain the minimal separation.the EAGUL4 STAR is very fast and the airplanes are very high when they come to the finals sector. I would recommend that the aircraft be taken off the STAR for more stabilized altitude and speeds.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Training Controller and his student report a loss of separation incident resulting in a go around during visual approach to Runway 26 at PHX. Both controllers lament the loss of control that resulted when the EAGUL 4 RNAV procedure was instituted.

Narrative: I was training on Finals on the Freeway sector. I took the radar handoff on Air Carrier X who was descending via the EAGUL4 arrival Runway 26 transition. When I took the radar hand off on Air Carrier Y; I saw that they were about 4 miles in-trail. Air Carrier Y was also descending via the EAGUL4 arrival. I watched to make sure that Air Carrier Y was slowing to a similar speed as Air Carrier X and noticed that Air Carrier Y was indeed slowing down. I cleared Air Carrier X for a visual approach and noticed that Air Carrier Y was still showing a faster speed than Air Carrier X (I assumed that the speed difference was from the altitude difference and that the airplane was slowing more than it actually was). After I cleared Air Carrier Y for a visual approach I went back to slow him down further. The speed still was in transition and I felt it was not going to be enough to hold minimal separation. (A square turn to final approach course was not an option since there was an aircraft on opposite base and I felt Air Carrier Y would overshoot the localizer). Then I gave Air Carrier Y a ten degree turn to push his turn on final further behind Air Carrier X. My OJTI asked Air Carrier Y if he had the Air Carrier X in-sight and Air Carrier Y acknowledged that he did. We used visual separation to clear Air Carrier Y and still reduced his speed to 150 KTS since Air Carrier Y's speed was still showing faster. Then I shipped Air Carrier Y to the Tower. Air Carrier Y thereafter became a go-around and subsequent investigation. I was notified that we had lost minimal separation outside 10 miles of PHX. I am unsure exactly what point the two aircraft lost separation; if it was before or after I tried to maintain the minimal separation.The EAGUL4 STAR is very fast and the airplanes are very high when they come to the Finals sector. I would recommend that the aircraft be taken off the STAR for more stabilized altitude and speeds.

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	929566
Time
Date	201101
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	P50.TRACON
State Reference	AZ
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach Trainee
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Developmental
Person 2
Function	Approach Instructor
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Training controller and his student report a loss of separation incident resulting in a go around during visual approach to runway 26 at phx. Both controllers lament the loss of control that resulted when the eagul 4 RNAV procedure was instituted.