Narrative:

I had signed in for my shift and went to the tower. The ground controller (ground control) and local controller (local control) both appeared to be working 'steady' traffic; but were not 'busy.' I had offered to relieve the ground control and he declined; I then asked if the local control would like a break and she declined; but said I could sign in as tower controller in charge (tcic) if I wanted; I signed in as tcic and she gave me a briefing. I was monitoring the operation and making 'small talk' with the ground control. I had walked over to the local control side of the tower and was monitoring local control operation when she had issued an aircraft a heading of 010 degrees and switched them to departure control. Local control then solicited a land and hold short operation (lahso) to an aircraft 3 miles from the airport landing runway 1 and the aircraft accepted the solicitation. Local control then put a cessna with a requested on course heading of 165 degrees in position on runway 33 and advised the aircraft of their participation in lahso; the aircraft acknowledged. The local control then cleared the cessna for takeoff and promptly put air carrier X in position on runway 33 while advising them that an aircraft was landing runway 1 and would hold short of runway 33; air carrier X acknowledged. As the aircraft landing runway 1 rolled out and was slowing to taxi speed the local control issued a heading of 350 degrees to the cessna and switched them to departure. The local control cleared air carrier X for take off runway heading. Shortly after I noticed air carrier X rotate and then level off; flying at approximately 100 feet above runway 33; I pointed out the abnormality to local control. It was very quickly known why air carrier X was maneuvering in such a manor and we observed the cessna flying directly in air carrier X's path approximately 500 feet above. The departure controller called the local control and asked what the cessna was doing while the ground control was simultaneously requesting to cross runway 1 at taxiway charlie with two aircraft. The local control ignored the ground control and stated to the departure controller 'he's on a 350' referring to the cessna but the departure controller did not acknowledge. Air carrier X had flown the entire length of runway 33 and then made a climbing left turn on their own. Then the departure controller called local control and instructed them to issue a 270 heading to air carrier X; local control acknowledged and issued the instruction. The local control then switched air carrier X to departure. Air carrier X acknowledged the instruction and informed local control that they had to make 'alternative maneuvers to avoid that traffic'. I then relieved the local control immediately. Our SOP states that local control is authorized to issue one of 3 headings to all VFR or IFR departures. For a runway 15/19 operation local is authorized to issue headings 150; 170; and 190. For a runway 33/1 operation local control is authorized to issue headings 330; 350; 010. The btv SOP specifically states that local shall assign one of three appropriate headings 'predicated' on the departure's first fix. 6 lines later it states that if the local controller is unable to issue the appropriate heading to expedite traffic the heading to be assigned shall not conflict with the preceding departure. This is conflicting information. Is the heading issued by local control determined by the departure first fix outside of the burlington airspace; or is it for the efficient flow of traffic? Furthermore; the local controller is in a much more advantageous position to determine whether a VFR aircraft can resume their own navigation on course or not. Due to equipment limitations and update speeds the radar controller is always about 4 to 5 seconds behind; the local controller is not. The situation that occurred between air carrier X and the cessna could have been easily avoided if our SOP had well defined procedures and responsibilities for local control which it does not. If local control had the responsibility of putting VFR aircraft on course towards their destination then the departure controller would not need to even consider or wonder what heading the departure was issued; what direction they can turn them if required; and if they will conflict with any other departures. I recommend that to accomplish the mentioned vision the local controller would require delegated airspace which we do not. The local controller would also be responsible for all IFR or VFR separation within their airspace. The local controller would also be responsible for putting VFR aircraft on course and if they are unable to they would need to advise the departure controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BTV Controller described a confused departure event resulting in a conflict noting Tower procedures covering heading assignments are in need of revision

Narrative: I had signed in for my shift and went to the Tower. The Ground Controller (GC) and Local Controller (LC) both appeared to be working 'steady' traffic; but were not 'busy.' I had offered to relieve the GC and he declined; I then asked if the LC would like a break and she declined; but said I could sign in as Tower Controller In Charge (TCIC) if I wanted; I signed in as TCIC and she gave me a briefing. I was monitoring the operation and making 'small talk' with the GC. I had walked over to the LC side of the Tower and was monitoring LC operation when she had issued an aircraft a heading of 010 degrees and switched them to Departure Control. LC then solicited a land and hold short operation (LAHSO) to an aircraft 3 miles from the airport landing Runway 1 and the aircraft accepted the solicitation. LC then put a Cessna with a requested on course heading of 165 degrees in position on Runway 33 and advised the aircraft of their participation in LAHSO; the aircraft acknowledged. The LC then cleared the Cessna for takeoff and promptly put Air Carrier X in position on Runway 33 while advising them that an aircraft was landing Runway 1 and would hold short of Runway 33; Air Carrier X acknowledged. As the aircraft landing Runway 1 rolled out and was slowing to taxi speed the LC issued a heading of 350 degrees to the Cessna and switched them to Departure. The LC cleared Air Carrier X for take off runway heading. Shortly after I noticed Air Carrier X rotate and then level off; flying at approximately 100 feet above Runway 33; I pointed out the abnormality to LC. It was very quickly known why Air Carrier X was maneuvering in such a manor and we observed the Cessna flying directly in Air Carrier X's path approximately 500 feet above. The Departure Controller called the LC and asked what the Cessna was doing while the GC was simultaneously requesting to cross Runway 1 at taxiway Charlie with two aircraft. The LC ignored the GC and stated to the Departure Controller 'he's on a 350' referring to the Cessna but the Departure Controller did not acknowledge. Air Carrier X had flown the entire length of Runway 33 and then made a climbing left turn on their own. Then the Departure Controller called LC and instructed them to issue a 270 heading to Air Carrier X; LC acknowledged and issued the instruction. The LC then switched Air Carrier X to Departure. Air Carrier X acknowledged the instruction and informed LC that they had to make 'alternative maneuvers to avoid that traffic'. I then relieved the LC immediately. Our SOP states that LC is authorized to issue one of 3 headings to all VFR or IFR departures. For a Runway 15/19 operation local is authorized to issue headings 150; 170; and 190. For a Runway 33/1 operation Local Control is authorized to issue headings 330; 350; 010. The BTV SOP specifically states that local shall assign one of three appropriate headings 'predicated' on the departure's first fix. 6 lines later it states that if the Local Controller is unable to issue the appropriate heading to expedite traffic the heading to be assigned shall not conflict with the preceding departure. THIS IS CONFLICTING INFORMATION. Is the heading issued by Local Control determined by the departure first fix outside of the Burlington airspace; or is it for the efficient flow of traffic? Furthermore; the Local Controller is in a much more advantageous position to determine whether a VFR aircraft can resume their own navigation on course or not. Due to equipment limitations and update speeds the RADAR Controller is always about 4 to 5 seconds behind; the Local Controller is not. The situation that occurred between Air Carrier X and the Cessna could have been easily avoided if our SOP had well defined procedures and responsibilities for Local Control which it does not. If Local Control had the responsibility of putting VFR aircraft on course towards their destination then the Departure Controller would not need to even consider or wonder what heading the departure was issued; what direction they can turn them if required; and if they will conflict with any other departures. I recommend that to accomplish the mentioned vision the Local Controller would require delegated airspace which we do not. The Local Controller would also be responsible for all IFR or VFR separation within their airspace. The Local Controller would also be responsible for putting VFR aircraft on course and if they are unable to they would need to advise the Departure 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.