C90 controller described a confused go around event involving unclear and uncoordinated information ...

Narrative:

I was working south departure. I heard the arrival line shout out 'multiple go-arounds; runway 10.' then someone else stated heading 220; 4;000 ft on the misses. This heading would put the go-arounds on the west departure controller's frequency. Tower gave all three go-around to me; first two without incident. The 3rd aircraft; a MD80; was well southeast of the airport when it checked on at 4;000 ft; in a right turn to heading 220; which was turning them right toward another departure (an E145) at 2;800; still with tower. Departures climb to 5;000. I issued traffic to the MD80; a few seconds later I stated tower must be keeping that aircraft at 3;000 instead of climbing to 5;000 as normal. I was still working other traffic. I went back to the MD80 and turned the aircraft to a 270 heading to get behind the E145; when the MD80 stated they were responding to an RA. Tower had climbed the E145 right into the MD80. After the fact; I found out tower told the E145 to maintain visual separation but they never told me or the MD80. Tower knew they were going to have to get visual between the two. If they had just told the MD80 about the departure behind them; and that they would stay 1;000 below until maintaining visual separation; before switching the aircraft to departure and then advised me; it wouldn't have been such a surprise. The E145 was outside tower's airspace so they were probably feeling pressured to climb out of 3;000 and switch them to departure. Also after the fact; I found out tower had originally coordinated with someone that the MD80 would be on a 090 heading. I don't know why they changed it at the last minute and turned right into another aircraft without coordinating. Recommendation; I didn't have control of the MD80 to turn; nor did I know what heading the E145 was departing on even if I did. Tower should have left the MD80 on the originally coordinated heading of 090. They also could have advised the MD80 of the need for visual and then advised me of what they were doing.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C90 Controller described a confused go around event involving unclear and uncoordinated information between the Tower and TRACON; the reporter indicating separation was maintained but unknown to him because of the failed coordination.

Narrative: I was working South Departure. I heard the arrival line shout out 'multiple go-arounds; Runway 10.' Then someone else stated heading 220; 4;000 FT on the misses. This heading would put the go-arounds on the West Departure Controller's frequency. Tower gave all three go-around to me; first two without incident. The 3rd aircraft; a MD80; was well southeast of the airport when it checked on at 4;000 FT; in a right turn to heading 220; which was turning them right toward another departure (an E145) at 2;800; still with Tower. Departures climb to 5;000. I issued traffic to the MD80; a few seconds later I stated Tower must be keeping that aircraft at 3;000 instead of climbing to 5;000 as normal. I was still working other traffic. I went back to the MD80 and turned the aircraft to a 270 heading to get behind the E145; when the MD80 stated they were responding to an RA. Tower had climbed the E145 right into the MD80. After the fact; I found out Tower told the E145 to maintain visual separation but they never told me or the MD80. Tower knew they were going to have to get visual between the two. If they had just told the MD80 about the departure behind them; and that they would stay 1;000 below until maintaining visual separation; before switching the aircraft to Departure and then advised me; it wouldn't have been such a surprise. The E145 was outside Tower's airspace so they were probably feeling pressured to climb out of 3;000 and switch them to Departure. Also after the fact; I found out Tower had originally coordinated with someone that the MD80 would be on a 090 heading. I don't know why they changed it at the last minute and turned right into another aircraft without coordinating. Recommendation; I didn't have control of the MD80 to turn; nor did I know what heading the E145 was departing on even if I did. Tower should have left the MD80 on the originally coordinated heading of 090. They also could have advised the MD80 of the need for visual and then advised me of what they were doing.

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	946027
Time
Date	201104
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	ORD.Airport
State Reference	IL
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Landing
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	EMB ERJ 145 ER&LR
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Climb
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Departure
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

C90 controller described a confused go around event involving unclear and uncoordinated information between the tower and TRACON; the reporter indicating separation was maintained but unknown to him because of the failed coordination.