VFR tower controller described a potential separation issue when the approach controller failed to i...

Narrative:

I was working the local control position; we were active runway 3. I had a BE33 (IFR) on an ILS approach to runway 26R on a 3 mile final with instructions to circle to land runway 3. Sct approach switched a MU2 (IFR) to me 4 east of the airport on an IFR visual approach. I advised the MU2 to make right traffic to runway 3. The MU2 turned to the down wind 2 northeast of the field and reported that he did not have the BE33 in sight. The BE33 was turning a 1 and 1/2 mile final to runway 3. I gave him the traffic. The MU2 abeam the numbers for runway 3 again said he did not have the BE33 in sight. The BE33 at that point was abeam him less by than 1 mile opposite direction. There were no altitude restrictions on either aircraft. Chino tower is a VFR tower. We are not authorized to provide separation between IFR arrivals; per LOA. These two aircraft were well within standard IFR separation requirements. Sct needs to train its controllers on proper IFR separation requirements and inform them that we are not authorized to provide IFR separations on arrivals.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: VFR Tower Controller described a potential separation issue when the Approach Controller failed to insure required separation between two IFR arrivals.

Narrative: I was working the Local Control position; we were active Runway 3. I had a BE33 (IFR) on an ILS approach to Runway 26R on a 3 mile final with instructions to circle to land Runway 3. SCT Approach switched a MU2 (IFR) to me 4 east of the airport on an IFR Visual Approach. I advised the MU2 to make right traffic to Runway 3. The MU2 turned to the down wind 2 northeast of the field and reported that he did not have the BE33 in sight. The BE33 was turning a 1 and 1/2 mile final to Runway 3. I gave him the traffic. The MU2 abeam the numbers for Runway 3 again said he did not have the BE33 in sight. The BE33 at that point was abeam him less by than 1 mile opposite direction. There were no altitude restrictions on either aircraft. Chino Tower is a VFR Tower. We are not authorized to provide separation between IFR arrivals; per LOA. These two aircraft were well within standard IFR separation requirements. SCT needs to train its controllers on proper IFR separation requirements and inform them that we are not authorized to provide IFR separations on arrivals.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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	994262
Time
Date	201202
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	MU-2
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Bonanza 33
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Descent
Person 1
Function	Local
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

VFR tower controller described a potential separation issue when the approach controller failed to insure required separation between two IFR arrivals.