Narrative:

Ack tower called me (approach); prior to the departure of a PA28; stating the aircraft was looking to do multiple practice approaches and wished to coordinate a heading for the departure. Runway heading off of runway 6 was agreed upon by the developmental and the tower; I then questioned the tower if we could have control of the aircraft upon departure. The request was approved by the tower. After the PA28 was radar identified; the developmental turned the aircraft to a heading 310; to maneuver the aircraft for a left downwind for the ILS 6 final approach course. In the meantime; the tower released a king air off of runway 6 on a heading of 010 climbing to 2;000 ft; putting the king air and the PA28 on converging courses with the same altitude assigned. When the king air checked in on the assigned heading of 010; I immediately took over the frequency to stop the climb of the king air at 1;500 ft (the MVA for that area) and turned the aircraft right to a heading of 090; behind the PA28. I then called traffic to the king air; the pilot reported the traffic in sight; and the pilot was then instructed to maintain visual separation. After the aircraft passed I climbed the king air to 4;000 ft and then turned the aircraft on course. Ack and hya towers both use the ARTS rundown departure list. Hya tower puts the assigned heading of the departing aircraft in the run down list when the aircraft is rolling. Ack tower only puts the departure runway in the list when the aircraft is rolling; the assigned heading is unknown to the approach controller prior to aircraft checking in with departure. Since the technology already exists; I recommend that ack tower be required to put the assigned heading in the run down list as well. If an approach controller notices that the heading assigned to the aircraft will put the departure in conflict with traffic; the approach controller can be proactive and coordinate a different heading with tower early enough that separation errors and unsafe situations never develop. This has been brought up to ack tower in the past; however ack tower resisted the change. Doing this would not alleviate responsibility on either the tower or approach controller; but would be added tool of situational awareness for the approach controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: K90 Controller described a near loss of separation event involving missed coordination with an ACK Tower. The reporter suggests that ACK Tower run down coordination procedures should be changed to duplicate those used by HYA Tower to simplify coordination.

Narrative: ACK Tower called me (Approach); prior to the departure of a PA28; stating the aircraft was looking to do multiple practice approaches and wished to coordinate a heading for the departure. Runway heading off of Runway 6 was agreed upon by the Developmental and the Tower; I then questioned the Tower if we could have control of the aircraft upon departure. The request was approved by the Tower. After the PA28 was RADAR identified; the Developmental turned the aircraft to a heading 310; to maneuver the aircraft for a left downwind for the ILS 6 final approach course. In the meantime; the Tower released a King Air off of Runway 6 on a heading of 010 climbing to 2;000 FT; putting the King Air and the PA28 on converging courses with the same altitude assigned. When the King Air checked in on the assigned heading of 010; I immediately took over the frequency to stop the climb of the King Air at 1;500 FT (the MVA for that area) and turned the aircraft right to a heading of 090; behind the PA28. I then called traffic to the King Air; the pilot reported the traffic in sight; and the pilot was then instructed to maintain visual separation. After the aircraft passed I climbed the King Air to 4;000 FT and then turned the aircraft on course. ACK and HYA Towers both use the ARTS rundown departure list. HYA Tower puts the assigned heading of the departing aircraft in the run down list when the aircraft is rolling. ACK Tower only puts the departure runway in the list when the aircraft is rolling; the assigned heading is unknown to the Approach Controller prior to aircraft checking in with Departure. Since the technology already exists; I recommend that ACK Tower be required to put the assigned heading in the run down list as well. If an Approach Controller notices that the heading assigned to the aircraft will put the departure in conflict with traffic; the Approach Controller can be proactive and coordinate a different heading with Tower early enough that separation errors and unsafe situations never develop. This has been brought up to ACK Tower in the past; however ACK Tower resisted the change. Doing this would not alleviate responsibility on either the Tower or Approach Controller; but would be added tool of situational awareness for the Approach Controller.

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.