DEN Local controllers reported an airborne conflict between three aircraft on approach resulting in one of them executing a go-around.
Synopsis
DEN Local controllers reported an airborne conflict between three aircraft on approach resulting in one of them executing a go-around.
Narrative
Aircraft X; was landing Runway 35R followed by Aircraft Y; and Aircraft Z. I recognized the spacing with the aircraft following Aircraft X so I asked if they could increase their speed and they replied negative so then I responded with plan minimum tie on the runway for traffic in-trail. I called the D01 FR Controller at 0111.31Z because the spacing with Aircraft X and Aircraft Y wasn't going to work and the D01 FR Controller advised me to send Aircraft X around because they 'weren't supposed to slow like that'. I called the D01 FR Controller back at 0111.41Z and asked if I could just send Aircraft Y around because otherwise I was going to have a problem with spacing for Aircraft Z. The D01 FR Controller said no; Aircraft Z has him in sight and is pulling his speed back. I tried to call back again to see if I could just send Aircraft Y around and he said no; send Aircraft X around he wasn't supposed to slow like that. I sent Aircraft X around.Aircraft Y was shipped to me late but on initial contact I advised to plan minimum time on the Runway for traffic in-trail. Aircraft Z checked on and I asked if they could slow further because they were 2 miles in-trail of Aircraft Y and they said no and that they didn't know why they cut that guy in front of them. I had to send Aircraft Z around. Aircraft Z called and complained about the poor ATC service Runway 35R. During the phone call the pilot stated: 'We had to go around because of spacing with the Aircraft Y.' 'When he was stuffed in front of us; we were less than 2 miles. How did that happen?' 'The other guy (Aircraft X) was 4 NM in front us.' 'That was uncomfortably close.' 'We thought; 'Where the hell did that guy (Aircraft Y) come from?'' 'That should have never happened. He should have never stuffed him (Aircraft Y) in front of us.' 'We have people coming out their seats over this.' 'We want to make sure this doesn't happen again because this has happened before.' DEN ATCT requested a joint system service review with Denver TRACON and they declined to participate.Per FAA JO 7110.65 Chapter 5 Section 7 par 1: Speed adjustment application: 'Do not assign adjustment to aircraft: Inside the final approach fix or a point 5 miles from the runway; whichever is closer to the runway.' DEN ATCT has been issuing speeds not compliant with this directive due to compression on final and spacing on final. DEN/D01 LOA says transfer of communication to DEN ATCT will be between 5-10 NM. Aircraft Y did not come over until inside the 5 NM. Aircraft should not be transferred until clear of conflict which includes significant speed differences. Recommend adequate spacing on final.
Second reporter narrative
Aircraft X; was landing Runway 35R followed by Aircraft Y; and then Aircraft Z. After reviewing the incident; Aircraft X was never issued a speed to the FAF. DEN ATCT LC2 recognized the spacing with the aircraft following Aircraft X so they asked if Aircraft X could increase their speed and they replied in the negative so then LC2 responded with plan minimum time on the runway for traffic in-trail. LC2 called the D01 FR Controller at 0111.31Z because the spacing with Aircraft X and Aircraft Y wasn't going to work and the D01 FR Controller advised LC2 to send Aircraft X around because they 'weren't supposed to slow like that'. LC2 called the D01 FR controller back at 0111.41Z and asked if they could just send Aircraft Y around because otherwise they were going to have a problem with spacing for Aircraft Z. The D01 FR controller said no; Aircraft Z had him in sight and is pulling his speed back. LC2 tried to call back again to see if they could just send Aircraft Y around and he said no; send Aircraft X around he wasn't supposed to slow like that. LC2 sent Aircraft X around.Aircraft Y was shipped to LC2 inside 5NM and on initial contact LC2 advised to plan minimum time on the Runway for traffic in-trail. Aircraft Z checked on and LC2 asked if they could slow further because they were 2 miles in-trail of Aircraft Y and they said no and that they didn't know why they cut that guy in front of them. LC2 had to sent Aircraft Z around. Aircraft Z called and complained about the poor ATC service to Runway 35R. During the phone call the pilot stated: 'We had to go around because of spacing with the Aircraft Y.' 'When he was stuffed in front of us; we were less than 2 miles. How did that happen?' 'The other guy (Aircraft X) was 4 NM in front us.' 'That was uncomfortably close.' 'We thought; 'Where the hell did that guy (Aircraft Y) come from?'' 'That should have never happened. He should have never stuffed him (Aircraft Y) in front of us.' 'We have people coming out their seats over this.' 'We want to make sure this doesn't happen again because this has happened before.' DEN ATCT requested a joint system service review with Denver TRACON and they declined to participate. Follow the LOA to transfer aircraft between 5-10 NM. Provide adequate spacing. Be more open to one go-around in lieu of 2 go-arounds.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.