Narrative:

Aircraft X was at 3;000 feet on a vector 3 miles northeast of apf. There was an aircraft that departed apf squawking 1200. I observed the aircraft climbing and saw the aircraft go above 2;500 feet. I immediately called apf tower and told them to stop the VFR aircraft for traffic. These aircraft were min separation was 0.12 on my scope when I observed the VFR departure climb thru 2;500 feet. This is now the 4th incident with the same controller at apf. I have had a VFR aircraft climb through my downwind at 3;000 feet. When I called over; I was told that 'the aircraft is VFR;' in a real condescending fashion. I tried to explain that regardless of the type of flight; we have an obligation to separate aircraft. I have also had 2 subsequent departures with the controller where a jet has been turned through a VFR aircraft's flight path. In fact; one happened last week and they were .4 miles apart and climbing through the aircraft's altitude. Both aircraft were on me; so visual separation was not being provided. There is a history with issue with apf tower. It is dangerous and needs to be addressed.there needs to be intervention from the FAA to address the safety issues at apf tower. Although they have made improvements in the recent past; there still appears to be a lack of safety culture especially with VFR aircraft. There needs to be remedial training given on separation responsibilities. Although VFR aircraft are required minimal separation; the idea that they are VFR and subsequently not subject to any separation is a falsehood.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A TRACON Controller reported the Tower allowed a VFR aircraft to climb into confliction with traffic TRACON was vectoring on downwind.

Narrative: Aircraft X was at 3;000 feet on a vector 3 miles northeast of APF. There was an aircraft that departed APF squawking 1200. I observed the aircraft climbing and saw the aircraft go above 2;500 feet. I immediately called APF Tower and told them to stop the VFR aircraft for traffic. These aircraft were min separation was 0.12 on my scope when I observed the VFR departure climb thru 2;500 feet. This is now the 4th incident with the same controller at APF. I have had a VFR aircraft climb through my downwind at 3;000 feet. When I called over; I was told that 'The aircraft is VFR;' in a real condescending fashion. I tried to explain that regardless of the type of flight; we have an obligation to separate aircraft. I have also had 2 subsequent departures with the Controller where a jet has been turned through a VFR aircraft's flight path. In fact; one happened last week and they were .4 miles apart and climbing through the aircraft's altitude. Both aircraft were on me; so visual separation was not being provided. There is a history with issue with APF Tower. It is dangerous and needs to be addressed.There needs to be intervention from the FAA to address the safety issues at APF Tower. Although they have made improvements in the recent past; there still appears to be a lack of safety culture especially with VFR aircraft. There needs to be remedial training given on separation responsibilities. Although VFR aircraft are required minimal separation; the idea that they are VFR and subsequently not subject to any separation is a falsehood.

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.