Narrative:

Sfo tower is failing/refusing to forward amended flight plan information. Nct traffic management unit (tmu) advised that sfo was changing to runway 28/28 straight out operation while oak and sjc were remaining runway 12. This causes a bay area configuration flow change from 'south-east' to '12/west plan'. Sfo tower coordinator called to confirm the runway change and flight plan information as usual. I asked the coordinator to make sure the flights were amended to the offshore route as the wesla SID was incorrect routing. He said he would make sure. I then asked to confirm they would be amending via subsequent flight plans that had been originally routed on the south-east flow configuration. The response was that clearance delivery was too busy and would likely not do this. The aircraft listed in this report are just a sampling of the aircraft that were scanned on incorrect routing. Some as late as 20 minutes after the flow configuration change occurred. Flight plan routes do not necessarily stay the same when going from south-east to west plan configuration and vice versa. The SID is not the only change. SID transitions and routes can vary. When the tower fails to properly amend this information; the TRACON and or ZOA ends up with a pilot potentially having a route of flight that is different from what ZOA has. In addition; when flight plan information is not forwarded to the correct ZOA sector when the flight plan is not flight data input/output (fdio) amended. I was instructed by my supervisor to amend the flight plans that had already been scanned in order to assist the tower. However; when the TRACON takes on this responsibility there is absolutely no way for us to know if the tower did in fact issue the amendment; because the tower is not required to re-scan a revision and there is no verbal coordination required either. So now ZOA thinks everything has been taken care of when in fact; it may not be. We are back with the situation where potentially the pilot has a route of flight that differs from what ZOA has. It has been stated by sfo tower that since there are attachments contained in the nct/sfo letter of agreement that show which sids can be issued based on runway or flow configuration that this constitutes control coordination and fulfills the requirement to forward amended flight plan information to the TRACON and ZOA. The attachment allows the tower the option to assign more than one SID for each runway. To assume the TRACON/ZOA will somehow know which one was issued is a reckless [and] unsafe belief.this issue has been ongoing for months with as yet no resolution in sight. It is a matter that could be immediately corrected by the tower; yet failure to forward amended flight plan information continues. To knowingly allow a situation to continue that will cause an unexpected; sudden loss of separation for another controller and pilot should be unacceptable. Sfo tower has a clearance delivery and flight data position. In addition; they also have tmu support. With these resources; amending these flight plans should not be impossible. Whoever is responsible for issuing an amended clearance also has the responsibility to properly amend via flight data computer and forward this information. It seems the tower needs to possibly revise their training and or processing of how to handle this situation. Flight data should be taking down the flight plan computer identification numbers from local and ground control; then amend each flight plan. Then take these amended flight plans back to the original. When the amended flight plan has been issued to the pilot; then throw away the original. Scan or re-scan the flight plan so the TRACON and ZOA know that his has been issued as well. Clearance delivery can focus on issuing the amendments to the pilot. Therefore ground and local are free to take care of their positions. There should never be a flight plan that is intentionally forwarded to another controller that is incorrect.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NCT TRACON Departure Controller had to amend flight plan routes in the computer for aircraft after a runway change but thought that should be a Tower Controller responsibility.

Narrative: SFO tower is failing/refusing to forward amended flight plan information. NCT Traffic management Unit (TMU) advised that SFO was changing to Runway 28/28 straight out operation while OAK and SJC were remaining Runway 12. This causes a bay area configuration flow change from 'south-east' to '12/west plan'. SFO tower coordinator called to confirm the runway change and flight plan information as usual. I asked the coordinator to make sure the flights were amended to the offshore route as the WESLA SID was incorrect routing. He said he would make sure. I then asked to confirm they would be amending via subsequent flight plans that had been originally routed on the south-east flow configuration. The response was that clearance delivery was too busy and would likely not do this. The aircraft listed in this report are just a sampling of the aircraft that were scanned on incorrect routing. Some as late as 20 minutes after the flow configuration change occurred. Flight plan routes do not necessarily stay the same when going from south-east to west plan configuration and vice versa. The SID is not the only change. SID transitions and routes can vary. When the tower fails to properly amend this information; the TRACON and or ZOA ends up with a pilot potentially having a route of flight that is different from what ZOA has. In addition; when flight plan information is not forwarded to the correct ZOA sector when the flight plan is not Flight Data Input/Output (FDIO) amended. I was instructed by my supervisor to amend the flight plans that had already been scanned in order to assist the tower. However; when the TRACON takes on this responsibility there is absolutely no way for us to know if the tower did in fact issue the amendment; because the tower is not required to re-scan a revision and there is no verbal coordination required either. So now ZOA thinks everything has been taken care of when in fact; it may not be. We are back with the situation where potentially the pilot has a route of flight that differs from what ZOA has. It has been stated by SFO tower that since there are attachments contained in the NCT/SFO Letter of Agreement that show which SIDs can be issued based on runway or flow configuration that this constitutes control coordination and fulfills the requirement to forward amended flight plan information to the TRACON and ZOA. The attachment allows the tower the option to assign more than one SID for each runway. To assume the TRACON/ZOA will somehow know which one was issued is a reckless [and] unsafe belief.This issue has been ongoing for months with as yet no resolution in sight. It is a matter that could be immediately corrected by the tower; yet failure to forward amended flight plan information continues. To knowingly allow a situation to continue that will cause an unexpected; sudden loss of separation for another controller and pilot should be unacceptable. SFO tower has a clearance delivery and flight data position. In addition; they also have TMU support. With these resources; amending these flight plans should not be impossible. Whoever is responsible for issuing an amended clearance also has the responsibility to properly amend via Flight Data computer and forward this information. It seems the tower needs to possibly revise their training and or processing of how to handle this situation. Flight data should be taking down the flight plan Computer ID numbers from Local and Ground control; then amend each flight plan. Then take these amended flight plans back to the original. When the amended flight plan has been issued to the pilot; then throw away the original. Scan or re-scan the flight plan so the TRACON and ZOA know that his has been issued as well. Clearance delivery can focus on issuing the amendments to the pilot. Therefore ground and local are free to take care of their positions. There should never be a flight plan that is intentionally forwarded to another controller that is incorrect.

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.