Two TRACON Finals Controllers reported a satellite Tower unexpectedly issued improper go around instructions to a corporate jet resulting in the aircraft flying below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude and one of the finals controllers having to break out aircraft off their approach for re-sequencing.
Synopsis
Two TRACON Finals Controllers reported a satellite Tower unexpectedly issued improper go around instructions to a corporate jet resulting in the aircraft flying below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude and one of the finals controllers having to break out aircraft off their approach for re-sequencing.
Narrative
ZZZ1 aircraft have to be sequence reference wake from wake generating aircraft landing ZZZ. In a recent Letter of Agreement (LOA) between ZZZ [Approach] and ZZZ1; during periods of lower weather where ZZZ1 cannot use the 'Plan' procedure; arrivals should be 5 miles in trail to accommodate the ZZZ1 VFR pattern. During a period of increased heavy wake generators landing ZZZ I was given a small window to sequence 2 Jets onto the ZZZ1 final. Leading aircraft was an Aircraft Y; in-trail spacing required was 3 miles. I started with 5 miles in-trail with both aircraft assigned 170 kts. to the final approach fix. The lead aircraft had slowed a little early; but even with the overtake; 3 miles in-trail would not have been lost. When Aircraft X reached 7 mile final; ZZZ1 called me to tell me that the aircraft were nearing 4 miles in-trail and that they could not maintain visual separation.They then asked me how I wanted them back; effectively telling me they were breaking them out. I had traffic to the east of ZZZ1 in a location that wouldn't have been safe. I told ZZZ1 to have the aircraft maintain 2100 ft. and turn to a 220 heading. ZZZ1 read back 'Heading 220 climb to 2100 ft.?'; which I confirmed. I should have been more specific and told them 2100 ft.; then heading 220. Aircraft X then proceeded to 4 mile final and descended to 1500 ft. before starting a turn to heading 220. The MVA in that area is 2100 ft. Spacing to lead aircraft never reduced less than 4 miles. Aircraft X reached 2100 ft. about one mile after starting the turn. One aircraft had to be broken off the approach to ZZZ to accommodate the ZZZ1 breakout.I need to be more concise and specific with my instructions to protect for vectors below the MVA. ZZZ1 should receive a refresher on required spacing between aircraft types. ZZZ has laminated cards at most positions with RECAT spacing requirements between aircraft types. If ZZZ1 does not have these; they should get them; as a reminder or spacing requirements between aircraft types. Have the portion of the LOA removed that says TRACON with provide 5 miles in-trail when PLAN-A is not in effect to accommodate ZZZ1 VFR pattern traffic between IFR arrivals. This was intended to alleviate TCAS/RA go-arounds and give ZZZ1 the ability to run VFR traffic to the shorter parallel runway between IFR arrivals rather than side-by-side. ZZZ1 has not used this as intended and after implementation we have had go arounds due to TCAS/RA's. Rather; it is now being used; as written; to justify breaking aircraft off final; thus increasing complexity for the ZZZ1 Arrival Controller.
Second reporter narrative
It was a marginal VFR day; and we were working with no Plan procedure as defined by the 3-way Letter of Agreement (LOA) between ZZZ [Approach]; ZZZ; and ZZZ1. I was working a busy Final Approach session; including simultaneous dependent ILS approaches with heavy wake category aircraft. The ZZZ1 satellite Approach sector was also busy with multiple ZZZ1 arrivals; and we were working together in conjunction with Traffic Management Unit (TMU) for the sequencing of ZZZ1 arrivals and heavy aircraft inbound to ZZZ; in order to protect from wake turbulence in the event of a go around/missed approach of the aircraft inbound to ZZZ1.The satellite controller vectored Aircraft X onto the ZZZ1 XXR localizer; and I took additional steps to re-sequence my final and vectored Aircraft Z and Aircraft A across the ZZZ localizer in order to ensure wake separation when Aircraft X would cross the threshold to ZZZ1. At some point after Aircraft X was given a frequency change to ZZZ1 Tower; the ARM (Arrival Monitor) position to my right informed me that ZZZ1 Tower was cancelling the approach clearance for Aircraft X and sending them around. I was confused at first because they were still pretty far from the airport and the aircraft did not appear to be in unsafe proximity to the aircraft in front of them; nor overtaking them at an unsafe rate. When it was confirmed that Aircraft X was going to climb to 2100 ft. and be turned off the final; I cancelled the approach clearance for Aircraft Y on the ZZZ final; climbed them to 4000 ft. and began planning for their re-sequence. The additional workload of this coordination; Approach clearance cancellation; and planning; split my focus and started a ripple effect.I lost valuable time in issuing descent; speed adjustments; and approach clearance instructions necessary to sequence Aircraft Z to XXR and Aircraft A to XXL. Ultimately; I determined that Aircraft A was above the glidepath and too fast to ensure proper spacing at the threshold; and so I turned Aircraft A off the localizer and re-sequenced them for XXL. Aircraft Y and Aircraft A were now added to my pattern for re-sequence; and Aircraft X was added to the ZZZ1 satellite controller's pattern for re-sequencing. Several additional rounds of coordination had to be made for the sequence of heavy aircraft into ZZZ with arrivals to ZZZ1; and several aircraft from the Arrival West/East (feeder) Controller had to be slowed or given delay vectors to allow additional time to absorb the impact.The recently revised LOA between ZZZ [Approach] and ZZZ1 stipulates that when in a 'No Plan A' configuration; ZZZ will provide 5 nm of separation between arriving aircraft unless otherwise coordinated. I would recommend that this recent provision be eliminated. If it is determined that it should be kept as is; then I would recommend that ZZZ1 Tower not take action to create an unsafe go around/missed approach situation during marginal VFR weather with simultaneous ZZZ approaches based on a potential LOA violation that does not otherwise affect the safety of flight for the aircraft. It seems to me that simply logging/reporting the potential LOA violation and opening a dialog about the event could have resulted in a better outcome than the unsafe go-around situation; coupled with the re-sequencing of 3 aircraft during a period of marginal weather and high demand.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.