Narrative:

Per the letter of agreement (LOA) between the ATCT (ZZZ) and the TRACON (ZZZ1); missed approach procedures for practice instrument approaches to runway xx are as follows: IFR - heading 055 and 1;500 ft MSL; VFR - northbound outside of class B airspace. The TRACON issues a missed approach heading of 'runway heading' to prevent conflict with any potential VFR traffic; and then the ATCT issues the LOA climb out instructions when able based on traffic. Additionally; low approach is not authorized for IFR aircraft to ensure separation from aircraft passing overhead inbound/outbound to the class B airport (mco). I had just moved to local control to relieve a controller. The data block for aircraft X contained a scratch pad entry of 'tv/' which indicated a VOR approach to my airport and then a departure back to the TRACON for further service. A VFR aircraft will have a 'V' after the type/ground speed portion of the data block. An IFR aircraft will contain nothing extra in this spot. I mistook the last character of the aircraft call sign as the 'V' indicating VFR and issued the aircraft a clearance of; 'cleared for the option; missed approach instructions maintain VFR; left turn northbound.' the pilot questioned me by stating that approach control had issued a missed approach heading of 'runway heading.' I restated my clearance verbatim. Aircraft X performed a touch-and-go on runway xx; and began his northbound turn on climb out. I cleared aircraft Y; a PC12 on an IFR flight plan; for take off runway xx with an LOA heading of 055. The ground controller assumed I had put the P28R on the correct heading and realized the PC12 would quickly gain on him and I would lose IFR separation. He questioned me about the P28R's heading; and I realized my mistake. I assigned a heading of 360 to the P28R; and asked the cab coordinator to coordinate headings for both aircraft with departure control. The TRACON agreed to my headings of 360 for the P28R and 055 for the PC12. The aircraft flight paths diverged by more than 15 degrees and IFR separation was never lost. Had the P28R performed a low approach; IFR separation would not have been lost with any overhead aircraft because they were all at least 1;000 ft above the airport's class D airspace. In the immediate aftermath discussion; the cab coordinator and the front line manager said they had made the same mistake as me by confusing the last character of the P28R's call sign as the indication for VFR. I had an opportunity to catch my error when the pilot questioned me about my heading assignment; but I disregarded his inquiry since many pilots raise the same question after the ATCT changes the TRACON's climb out instructions. The pilot did not question my instruction to 'maintain VFR;' but he was busy flying a complex aircraft. Noise level in the tower cab was a factor. The cab coordinator position is mere feet from the local control position. Fatigue was also a factor. In my personal experience; I am much more fatigued the day after; rather than the day of; a quick turn-around. The lack of sleep seems to take a day to catch up with me; even if I get an adequate amount of sleep after the quick-turn shift. This is the situation I found myself in today. This is the second time in 2 months I have given VFR missed approach instructions to an IFR aircraft. I will redouble my efforts to interpret data block information. I will also consider ways to prevent this in the future by possibly proposing changes to the LOA to improve clarity in data block information displays. And I will be less quick to dismiss pilot questions; but instead view them as an opportunity to double-check my actions. Recommendation: changes to data block information - make the distinction of IFR or VFR more prominent.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Local Controller experienced a near loss of separation when critical Data Block information; IFR vs. VFR; was missed an incorrect climb out instructions were issued; the reporter suggesting Data Block changes.

Narrative: Per the Letter of Agreement (LOA) between the ATCT (ZZZ) and the TRACON (ZZZ1); missed approach procedures for practice instrument approaches to Runway XX are as follows: IFR - heading 055 and 1;500 FT MSL; VFR - Northbound outside of Class B airspace. The TRACON issues a missed approach heading of 'runway heading' to prevent conflict with any potential VFR traffic; and then the ATCT issues the LOA climb out instructions when able based on traffic. Additionally; low approach is not authorized for IFR aircraft to ensure separation from aircraft passing overhead inbound/outbound to the Class B airport (MCO). I had just moved to Local Control to relieve a controller. The Data Block for Aircraft X contained a scratch pad entry of 'TV/' which indicated a VOR approach to my airport and then a departure back to the TRACON for further service. A VFR aircraft will have a 'V' after the type/ground speed portion of the Data Block. An IFR aircraft will contain nothing extra in this spot. I mistook the last character of the aircraft call sign as the 'V' indicating VFR and issued the aircraft a clearance of; 'cleared for the option; missed approach instructions maintain VFR; left turn Northbound.' The pilot questioned me by stating that Approach Control had issued a missed approach heading of 'runway heading.' I restated my clearance verbatim. Aircraft X performed a touch-and-go on Runway XX; and began his Northbound turn on climb out. I cleared Aircraft Y; a PC12 on an IFR flight plan; for take off Runway XX with an LOA heading of 055. The Ground Controller assumed I had put the P28R on the correct heading and realized the PC12 would quickly gain on him and I would lose IFR separation. He questioned me about the P28R's heading; and I realized my mistake. I assigned a heading of 360 to the P28R; and asked the Cab Coordinator to coordinate headings for both aircraft with Departure Control. The TRACON agreed to my headings of 360 for the P28R and 055 for the PC12. The aircraft flight paths diverged by more than 15 degrees and IFR separation was never lost. Had the P28R performed a low approach; IFR separation would not have been lost with any overhead aircraft because they were all at least 1;000 FT above the airport's Class D airspace. In the immediate aftermath discussion; the Cab Coordinator and the Front Line Manager said they had made the same mistake as me by confusing the last character of the P28R's call sign as the indication for VFR. I had an opportunity to catch my error when the pilot questioned me about my heading assignment; but I disregarded his inquiry since many pilots raise the same question after the ATCT changes the TRACON's climb out instructions. The pilot did not question my instruction to 'maintain VFR;' but he was busy flying a complex aircraft. Noise level in the Tower Cab was a factor. The Cab Coordinator position is mere feet from the Local Control position. Fatigue was also a factor. In my personal experience; I am much more fatigued the day after; rather than the day of; a quick turn-around. The lack of sleep seems to take a day to catch up with me; even if I get an adequate amount of sleep after the quick-turn shift. This is the situation I found myself in today. This is the second time in 2 months I have given VFR missed approach instructions to an IFR aircraft. I will redouble my efforts to interpret Data Block information. I will also consider ways to prevent this in the future by possibly proposing changes to the LOA to improve clarity in Data Block information displays. And I will be less quick to dismiss pilot questions; but instead view them as an opportunity to double-check my actions. Recommendation: changes to Data Block information - make the distinction of IFR or VFR more prominent.

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.