TWO SMA CAME IN CLOSE PROX WHEN ONE MADE GO AROUND WITH THE OTHER JUST AIRBORNE OVER THE RWY.

Narrative

I WAS CTLR-IN-CHARGE (CIC) AND WAS ALSO WORKING GND CONTROL. THE TWO LOCAL CONTROL POSITIONS WERE MANNED BY NEWLY CERTIFIED CTLRS. THE LOCAL 1 CTLR HAD AN ACFT (DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION) SITTING IN POSITION ON THE APPROACH OF THE RWY. THE LOCAL 2 CTLR HAD AN ARRIVING ACFT (DESCRIBED IN THE AIRFRAME/ENGINE SECTION) ON SHORT FINAL FOR THE SAME RWY. AS CIC; I FELT THAT APPROPRIATE RWY SEPARATION MIGHT NOT EXIST AND ADVISED THE LOCAL 2 CTLR TO SEND HIS ACFT AROUND. HE DID SO; THE LOCAL 1 CTLR ISSUED A TKOF CLRNC TO THE ACFT SITTING ON THE RWY. THEY CLIMBED OUT WITH A MINIMUM OF SEPARATION. TFC VOLUME WAS HIGH AND IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR BOTH LOCAL CTLRS TO KEEP UP WITH THE TFC SITUATION AND THEY WERE DISTRACTED. IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR ME; AS CIC; TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE TO THEM AS I; TOO; WAS BUSY ON THE GND CONTROL POSITION. A CORRECTIVE ACTION MIGHT BE FOR THE AREA SUPERVISOR TO BE IN THE CAB AND PROVIDE THIS ASSISTANCE. ALSO; IT WOULD BE ADVISABLE NOT TO ALLOW NEWLY CERTIFIED CTLRS TO WORK POSITIONS THAT ARE SO DEPENDENT UPON EACH OTHER DURING HIGH VOLUME TFC. ANOTHER CORRECTIVE ACTION MIGHT BE FOR THE CIC TO NOT BE WORKING A POSITION OTHER THAN CIC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATED THAT THIS WAS CLASSIFIED AS A NON-INCIDENT AND THAT SEP WAS NOT LOST. SINCE THE LNDG ACFT WAS SENT AROUND; RWY SEP WAS NOT LOST. AFTER THE GO AROUND; EACH PLT WAS THEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN SEP. THE AREA SUPERVISOR WAS ON SICK LEAVE THIS DAY; AND STAFFING IN THE TWR WAS VERY SHORT THAT DAY. RPTR WAS ASKED WHY; WITH PARALLEL RWYS; THE LOCAL CTLRS WERE BOTH RUNNING OPERATIONS ON THE SAME RWY. HER ANSWER WAS THAT LOCAL 2 HAD COORD WITH LOCAL 1 FOR PERMISSION TO SEND THIS ARR TO LOCAL 1'S RWY. RPTR COULD NOT EXPLAIN WHY LOCAL 1 CLRED HIS ACFT AFTER LOCAL 2 SENT HIS ACFT AROUND.