Narrative:

This is a specific event; but it is also a systemic problem at ZZZ2. Aircraft X departed ZZZ to transition to ZZZ1 to land. Aircraft X was operating in accordance with the '[procedure name] transition' which is covered in a letter of agreement. This transition is a VFR procedure which allows [company] (part 135) to depart ZZZ and land on ZZZ1; which is on the western boundary of the class C surface area. Per the [company] transition LOA; ZZZ2 ATCT must: provide class C services.at approximately XA04Z; local control called me to 'point-out' aircraft X 'to ZZZ1 and back' from ZZZ. I have explained to several controllers in the past at ZZZ2 that I can only accept a 'point-out' on traffic that I can radar identify. I responded to local with 'point approved to ZZZ1; traffic will be aircraft Y when he is headed back' aircraft Y was approximately 10 southeast [of airport] on the [STAR] for the ILS to runway xxr. The airstrip that [company] lands on at ZZZ1 lies nearly directly beneath ZZZZ intersection (the FAF for the ILS). The altitude at ZZZZ intersection is 1600 MSL. Aircraft X made his approach to ZZZ1 and landed without incident. Aircraft Y was then cleared for the ILS. When aircraft Y was at approximately 7 mile final; (3 miles from FAF); I observed the data block for aircraft X acquiring over ZZZ1; indicating 200 ft MSL and climbing. I immediately issued traffic to aircraft Y and called ZZZ2 ATCT to ask if aircraft X had aircraft Y in sight (when I have brought this up in the past; I was assured that [tower] is establishing visual separation with any traffic). They responded with 'no; it's no factor; he'll be northbound.'aircraft X appeared to depart ZZZ1 southbound (across the localizer) and then turn northbound while climbing; again crossing the localizer. Aircraft X mode C altitude indicated a climb to as high as 1400 ft MSL. I observed aircraft Y cross the path of aircraft X and precede aircraft X toward runway xxr. If this occurs with [facility] traffic; it is considered a category 'a' wake turbulence separation event (heavy overtaking a small on the final). I have seen similar events in the past involving foreign heavy jet.I have reported this problem in the past with absolutely no results. It is obvious to me that ATCT does not fully comprehend their responsibilities when it comes to providing class C services to VFR aircraft: jo 71110.65 7-8-2 a.3.; jo 7110.65 7-8-3 c. Note 2.; jo 7110.65 7-2-1 a.1.(b); and jo 7110.65 5-5-4 f. None of these requirements are being met by ZZZ2 ATCT.this event and the multitude of other events similar to it are going to result in catastrophe at some point in the future; the 'holes in the cheese' just have not quite lined up yet.I would recommend that the transition LOA be amended to empower TRACON to delay the operation. [TRACON] is being placed in a position to accept an improper 'point-out' that is often misunderstood by ATCT. We are unable to ensure class C services to heavy jets and small aircraft inside the FAF to runway xxr; especially since it is ZZZ2 ATCT's airspace.I would also recommend that all personnel (from trainees all the way up to the OM) be trained on providing class C services to VFR aircraft. I would request that this training be conducted by a party outside of ZZZ2 ATCT; as it is apparent to me that nobody in the facility seems to understand their shortcomings in this area.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower Controller pointed out a small aircraft satellite airport departure to TRACON Controller. TRACON Controller approved point out referencing their heavy jet traffic on approach which passes over the satellite airport. Tower Controller allowed the small aircraft to pass behind heavy jet with less than required wake turbulence separation. TRACON Controller stated this type of scenario happens on a regular basis and that Tower Controllers do not comply with the wake turbulence separation criteria.

Narrative: This is a specific event; but it is also a systemic problem at ZZZ2. Aircraft X departed ZZZ to transition to ZZZ1 to land. Aircraft X was operating IAW the '[Procedure Name] Transition' which is covered in a Letter of Agreement. This transition is a VFR procedure which allows [Company] (Part 135) to depart ZZZ and land on ZZZ1; which is on the western boundary of the Class C surface area. Per the [Company] Transition LOA; ZZZ2 ATCT must: Provide Class C services.At approximately XA04Z; Local Control called me to 'point-out' Aircraft X 'To ZZZ1 and back' from ZZZ. I have explained to several controllers in the past at ZZZ2 that I can only accept a 'point-out' on traffic that I can radar identify. I responded to Local with 'point approved to ZZZ1; traffic will be Aircraft Y when he is headed back' Aircraft Y was approximately 10 SE [of airport] on the [STAR] for the ILS to Runway XXR. The airstrip that [Company] lands on at ZZZ1 lies nearly directly beneath ZZZZ intersection (the FAF for the ILS). The altitude at ZZZZ intersection is 1600 MSL. Aircraft X made his approach to ZZZ1 and landed without incident. Aircraft Y was then cleared for the ILS. When Aircraft Y was at approximately 7 mile final; (3 miles from FAF); I observed the data block for Aircraft X acquiring over ZZZ1; indicating 200 ft MSL and climbing. I immediately issued traffic to Aircraft Y and called ZZZ2 ATCT to ask if Aircraft X had Aircraft Y in sight (when I have brought this up in the past; I was assured that [tower] is establishing visual separation with any traffic). They responded with 'No; it's no factor; he'll be northbound.'Aircraft X appeared to depart ZZZ1 southbound (across the localizer) and then turn northbound while climbing; again crossing the localizer. Aircraft X mode C altitude indicated a climb to as high as 1400 ft MSL. I observed Aircraft Y cross the path of Aircraft X and precede Aircraft X toward Runway XXR. If this occurs with [facility] traffic; it is considered a category 'A' wake turbulence separation event (heavy overtaking a small on the final). I have seen similar events in the past involving foreign heavy jet.I have reported this problem in the past with absolutely no results. It is obvious to me that ATCT does not fully comprehend their responsibilities when it comes to providing Class C services to VFR aircraft: JO 71110.65 7-8-2 a.3.; JO 7110.65 7-8-3 c. Note 2.; JO 7110.65 7-2-1 a.1.(b); and JO 7110.65 5-5-4 f. None of these requirements are being met by ZZZ2 ATCT.This event and the multitude of other events similar to it are going to result in catastrophe at some point in the future; the 'holes in the cheese' just have not quite lined up yet.I would recommend that the Transition LOA be amended to empower TRACON to delay the operation. [TRACON] is being placed in a position to accept an improper 'point-out' that is often misunderstood by ATCT. We are unable to ensure Class C services to Heavy jets and small aircraft inside the FAF to Runway XXR; especially since it is ZZZ2 ATCT's airspace.I would also recommend that all personnel (from trainees all the way up to the OM) be trained on providing class C services to VFR aircraft. I would request that this training be conducted by a party outside of ZZZ2 ATCT; as it is apparent to me that nobody in the facility seems to understand their shortcomings in this area.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.