Narrative:

I was working the departure position. Aircraft X was a standard departure coming off sjc; routed on the loupe SID. The pilot didn't follow the SID. The loupe departure has pilots turning the aircraft to a heading of 120 shortly after departure and climbing to 5;000 feet; so that they turn out of the way of sfo and oak inbound aircraft. They are then given instructions by the departure controllers to turn on course after all traffic is no factor.instead of making a right turn to a heading of 120 as he was supposed to; aircraft X appeared to be going direct to the next fix on his route; which took him straight into the sfo arrival course at the same altitude as the sfo arrivals are descending to. At the time this was happening; I was coordinating with a different sector down to the south about something unrelated; and I did not notice that aircraft X hadn't turned as he was supposed to until he was about a mile into airspace of the sfo arrival controller. As soon as my eyes came back to that area of my scope; I noticed the aircraft was out of position and told him to stop his climb (in case he was still climbing as well as being off of his assigned route). The course he was on was taking him just behind an inbound to sfo; but was not within separation minima. I quoted the traffic to aircraft X; and he responded that he had it in sight and I instructed him to maintain visual separation in order to re-establish some form of separation. I then called the arrival controller and advised that aircraft X had the traffic in sight and that it was a 'runaway' departure. I then turned aircraft X to a heading of 120 because I saw that there was some clear airspace in that direction and the current arrivals in that area would not be a factor. However; I noticed the aircraft was indicating a ground speed of 300 knots; so I instructed the pilot to reduce his speed in order to turn tighter. While this was happening; another departure had departed and was turning inside of aircraft X. And then another aircraft departed sjc which I had to take action and stop his climb at 3;000 feet and remain flying runway heading from the airport in order to separate that aircraft from aircraft X. After a few more minor amendments to altitude on other aircraft; the sector was normalized. In the rush to re-establish and maintain separation from the sfo/oak arrivals and the successive sjc departures I failed to obtain a point-out from a sector; resulting in an airspace violation. Things were happening very quickly and since I saw that none of the oak traffic was a factor; the separation of aircraft and stabilizing my sector took priority. The simplest recommendation is to simply have the controller make loupe departures their number one priority in the sector. However; this can become unrealistic when there are many other distracting factors in the sector. Coordination with flight data; other towers in the airspace; neighboring airspace sectors calling for coordination can take a controller's eye off of the loupe departure for a few seconds; which is enough time for an off-course jet travelling 300 knots to fly a mile into dangerous airspace. It seems that pilots who do not fly regularly to and from sjc have some trouble with the loupe departure. I have had pilots question the departure many times; and there is obvious confusion in their language. It seems the turn to a heading of 120 confuses them; because it doesn't seem to link up to a fix. Also; the diagram on the SID can be a bit tricky to understand to those who have not seen it before. Perhaps another fix on the departure would be beneficial. A fix to the southeast of sjc with an appropriate altitude to cross may alleviate much of the confusion. Right now; the SID tells the aircraft to turn right to a heading of 120 and stay on it until told to do something else.... But at the same time there are other fixes on the departure which tie into the rest of the route. These other fixes are wellto the north; in the direction the pilot wants to go. If the pilot misses that he is supposed to turn southeast bound and simply goes to the next fix on the route; you have an aircraft headed straight into the sfo and oak final approach courses. If there is an extra fix on the departure that is well to the southeast and is clearly the next fix on the pilot's route; then it becomes much easier for the pilots to visualize the route and understand that the intention is to have them turn southeast before turning back northbound on course.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An NCT TRACON Controller reported on a departing aircraft that flew straight out instead of turning as cleared on the LOUPE SID from SJC. The aircraft flew into adjacent sectors and the Departure Controller did not make a point out of the aircraft to one of those sectors.

Narrative: I was working the departure position. Aircraft X was a standard departure coming off SJC; routed on the LOUPE SID. The pilot didn't follow the SID. The LOUPE Departure has pilots turning the aircraft to a heading of 120 shortly after departure and climbing to 5;000 feet; so that they turn out of the way of SFO and OAK inbound aircraft. They are then given instructions by the departure controllers to turn on course after all traffic is no factor.Instead of making a right turn to a heading of 120 as he was supposed to; Aircraft X appeared to be going direct to the next fix on his route; which took him straight into the SFO arrival course at the same altitude as the SFO arrivals are descending to. At the time this was happening; I was coordinating with a different sector down to the south about something unrelated; and I did not notice that Aircraft X hadn't turned as he was supposed to until he was about a mile into airspace of the SFO arrival controller. As soon as my eyes came back to that area of my scope; I noticed the aircraft was out of position and told him to stop his climb (in case he was still climbing as well as being off of his assigned route). The course he was on was taking him just behind an inbound to SFO; but was not within separation minima. I quoted the traffic to Aircraft X; and he responded that he had it in sight and I instructed him to maintain visual separation in order to re-establish some form of separation. I then called the arrival controller and advised that Aircraft X had the traffic in sight and that it was a 'runaway' departure. I then turned Aircraft X to a heading of 120 because I saw that there was some clear airspace in that direction and the current arrivals in that area would not be a factor. However; I noticed the aircraft was indicating a ground speed of 300 knots; so I instructed the pilot to reduce his speed in order to turn tighter. While this was happening; another departure had departed and was turning inside of Aircraft X. And then another aircraft departed SJC which I had to take action and stop his climb at 3;000 feet and remain flying Runway Heading from the airport in order to separate that aircraft from Aircraft X. After a few more minor amendments to altitude on other aircraft; the sector was normalized. In the rush to re-establish and maintain separation from the SFO/OAK arrivals and the successive SJC departures I failed to obtain a point-out from a sector; resulting in an airspace violation. Things were happening very quickly and since I saw that none of the OAK traffic was a factor; the separation of aircraft and stabilizing my sector took priority. The simplest recommendation is to simply have the controller make LOUPE departures their number one priority in the sector. However; this can become unrealistic when there are many other distracting factors in the sector. Coordination with Flight Data; other towers in the airspace; neighboring airspace sectors calling for coordination can take a controller's eye off of the LOUPE departure for a few seconds; which is enough time for an off-course jet travelling 300 knots to fly a mile into dangerous airspace. It seems that pilots who do not fly regularly to and from SJC have some trouble with the LOUPE departure. I have had pilots question the departure many times; and there is obvious confusion in their language. It seems the turn to a heading of 120 confuses them; because it doesn't seem to link up to a fix. Also; the diagram on the SID can be a bit tricky to understand to those who have not seen it before. Perhaps another fix on the departure would be beneficial. A fix to the southeast of SJC with an appropriate altitude to cross may alleviate much of the confusion. Right now; the SID tells the aircraft to turn right to a heading of 120 and stay on it until told to do something else.... but at the same time there are other fixes on the departure which tie into the rest of the route. These other fixes are wellto the north; in the direction the pilot wants to go. If the pilot misses that he is supposed to turn southeast bound and simply goes to the next fix on the route; you have an aircraft headed straight into the SFO and OAK final approach courses. If there is an extra fix on the departure that is well to the southeast and is clearly the next fix on the pilot's route; then it becomes much easier for the pilots to visualize the route and understand that the intention is to have them turn southeast before turning back northbound on course.

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.