Narrative:

This is for each and every time I worked ogg approach.each time I work ogg approach (R9 & R10; or hcf approach; since we aren't allowed to call it ogg approach; but I will address it as ogg approach; for simplicity); I must declare article 65. I am not comfortable working R9 & R10 based on the unsafe situation to which we are presented. The RNAV-Z approach descends down to 018; and VFR aircraft climb to 010. We have no separation; based on this 'standard procedure' in the LOA.other information about the RNAV-Z and VFR south bound climbing to 010.I called ogg tower to pre-coordinate what my intention would be for any heavy aircraft on the RNAV-Z approach; since our management has not addressed this on-going problem; and I am deeply concerned a catastrophic event will occur. I informed ogg tower that every time a heavy aircraft would be on the RNAV-Z that I would call to request no VFR departures come off the airport at 010; since we do not have separation with the heavy aircraft descending to 018. We require 010 of separation; and we would only have 008. This is unacceptable. This is a dangerous procedure; and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible. The controller at ogg tower refused to ever stop any VFR aircraft departing south bound; even when he knows it will be in conflict and cause an automatic loss of separation. I feel this is unacceptable that ogg tower is aware of this problem and refuses to take action to avoid the catastrophic incident that is imminent. I stopped my conversation with the ogg controller; because [the operations manager] told me yesterday not to engage in conflict on the recorded line and to let the supervisors; or himself handle the situation. I stopped the conversation with the ogg tower controller and asked him to call the supervisor to discuss the problem; and hopefully find a resolution.here is further background on this; based on my previous reports.I called ogg [before the aforementioned event] and had a conversation with the ogg tower controller to try to come up with a procedure on how to make it safer with the heavy descending to 018 on the RNAV-Z approach and his VFR aircraft climbing to 010. We need 1;000 feet of separation; and the LOA only provides us with 080 (800 feet). We will lose separation each and every time we have a VFR aircraft off the airport and a heavy inbound on the RNAV-Z approach. We have decided to let his supervisor call my supervisor and try to work out a resolution. I'm very concerned a catastrophic incident will occur prior to our management coming up with a solution that resolves this separation error; each and every time a heavy is on the RNAV-Z approach and a VFR aircraft departs to the south.here is the background:ogg changed its RNAV-Z approach to go below the minimum vectoring altitudes. Once an aircraft is cleared on the RNAV-Z; we are unable to vector them off the approach; due to the minimum vectoring altitudes being above the altitude of the approach. I was under the impression; and I was also told this on a recorded line by a controller at ogg that if an aircraft is on the RNAV-Z; ogg tower would be responsible for separating any departing VFR aircraft from the inbound IFR aircraft on the RNAV-Z approach. I asked if I need to call for each aircraft; and the ogg tower controller told me that as long as I type in 'rnz' into the scratchpad; ogg tower would handle the separation. Ogg tower typically climbs an aircraft southbound to stop at 1;000 feet; and the altitude on the RNAV-Z descends to 1;800 feet. For a heavy IFR aircraft and a VFR aircraft; a minimum separation of 1;000 feet would be needed. I assumed; based on my conversation on the recorded line with ogg tower that they would handle whatever separation would be necessary with any VFR departing off the airport; since I am not made aware of any departing VFR aircraft. I believed this to be true for every aircraft.there was never an issue with VFR aircraft being a factor for my IFR inbound on the RNAV-Z until when I had an inbound heavy aircraft X. I had cleared aircraft X for the RNAV-Z approach; and I was unable to take aircraft X off the approach; since minimum vectoring altitudes are above the approach altitudes. Then; a VFR aircraft departed off ogg and was switched to me; as I was working R9 & R10 combined. I called on the shout line and asked what type of separation ogg tower was giving me with the VFR and my aircraft X on the RNAV-Z approach. The ogg tower was unaware of any separation being necessary; and I told him about my conversation with a controller about how they would provide separation. The ogg tower controller denied any knowledge of this; and basically gave me an aircraft that would not be separated from my heavy on the RNAV-Z approach. I told him to have his supervisor call my supervisor and work out something; because it is unacceptable that ogg tower will provide no separation for the RNAV-Z approach. After my supervisor talked to their supervisor; I was told that ogg tower does not separate their VFR aircraft from the RNAV-Z. I find this unacceptable that an approach was created where a lack of separation incident is likely to occur.even though I am required to make a recommendation; I believe this is a dangerous situation that should be handled by our management.either we make ogg tower separate their VFR traffic from our IFR inbounds on the RNAV-Z; or we stop using the RNAV-Z approach. If the approach was made that did not provide separation; then it was a very poor approach to implement.my question is: do I keep using this approach? Do I stop using this approach? Do I need to coordinate each time I issue the approach with ogg tower? Do I tell ogg tower to stop all VFR departures to the south when I issue the RNAV-Z?also; I will keep re-stating my concern that R9 & R10 really needs to be de-combined during busy periods. I also strongly believe that R9 & R10 should have been split when we first implemented this new RNAV-Z approach; along with the other new approaches; until we are comfortable with this approach. We were not able to run dysim [dynamic simulation] problems in the lab to familiarize ourselves with how we would work ogg approach; under this new conditions; so there is a lot of confusion.I also recommended every ATC who works ogg approach declare article 65; every time we work ogg approach because there isn't a resolution to this problem.I also recommend that we call this sector 'ogg approach.' it is too confusing for everyone - controllers and pilots - to call this 'hcf approach;' especially since we have 'hcf approach' in a different area of our airspace. I believe calling 'ogg approach' makes the most sense; and the least amount of confusion.this needs to be resolved as soon as possible. Management needs to address this issue. As far as I know; nothing has been done to prevent a catastrophic incident from occurring.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HCF TRACON Controller reported a new procedure has been implemented at their facility which does not ensure required wake turbulence separation.

Narrative: This is for each and every time I worked OGG Approach.Each time I work OGG Approach (R9 & R10; or HCF Approach; since we aren't allowed to call it OGG Approach; but I will Address it as OGG Approach; for simplicity); I must declare Article 65. I am not comfortable working R9 & R10 based on the unsafe situation to which we are presented. The RNAV-Z approach descends down to 018; and VFR aircraft climb to 010. We have no separation; based on this 'Standard Procedure' in the LOA.Other information about the RNAV-Z and VFR south bound climbing to 010.I called OGG Tower to pre-coordinate what my intention would be for any heavy aircraft on the RNAV-Z approach; since our management has not addressed this on-going problem; and I am deeply concerned a catastrophic event will occur. I informed OGG Tower that every time a heavy aircraft would be on the RNAV-Z that I would call to request no VFR departures come off the airport at 010; since we do not have separation with the heavy aircraft descending to 018. We require 010 of separation; and we would only have 008. This is unacceptable. This is a dangerous procedure; and it needs to be addressed ASAP. The Controller at OGG tower refused to ever stop any VFR aircraft departing south bound; even when he knows it will be in conflict and cause an automatic loss of separation. I feel this is unacceptable that OGG Tower is aware of this problem and refuses to take action to avoid the catastrophic incident that is imminent. I stopped my conversation with the OGG controller; because [the Operations Manager] told me yesterday not to engage in conflict on the recorded line and to let the supervisors; or himself handle the situation. I stopped the conversation with the OGG Tower Controller and asked him to call the Supervisor to discuss the problem; and hopefully find a resolution.Here is further background on this; based on my previous reports.I called OGG [before the aforementioned event] and had a conversation with the OGG Tower Controller to try to come up with a procedure on how to make it safer with the heavy descending to 018 on the RNAV-Z approach and his VFR aircraft climbing to 010. We need 1;000 feet of separation; and the LOA only provides us with 080 (800 feet). We will lose separation each and every time we have a VFR aircraft off the airport and a heavy inbound on the RNAV-Z approach. We have decided to let his supervisor call my supervisor and try to work out a resolution. I'm very concerned a catastrophic incident will occur prior to our management coming up with a solution that resolves this separation error; each and every time a heavy is on the RNAV-Z approach and a VFR aircraft departs to the south.Here is the background:OGG changed its RNAV-Z approach to go below the minimum vectoring altitudes. Once an aircraft is cleared on the RNAV-Z; we are unable to vector them off the approach; due to the minimum vectoring altitudes being above the altitude of the approach. I was under the impression; and I was also told this on a recorded line by a controller at OGG that if an aircraft is on the RNAV-Z; OGG Tower would be responsible for separating any departing VFR aircraft from the inbound IFR aircraft on the RNAV-Z approach. I asked if I need to call for each aircraft; and the OGG Tower controller told me that as long as I type in 'RNZ' into the scratchpad; OGG Tower would handle the separation. OGG Tower typically climbs an aircraft southbound to stop at 1;000 feet; and the altitude on the RNAV-Z descends to 1;800 feet. For a heavy IFR aircraft and a VFR aircraft; a minimum separation of 1;000 feet would be needed. I assumed; based on my conversation on the recorded line with OGG Tower that they would handle whatever separation would be necessary with any VFR departing off the airport; since I am not made aware of any departing VFR aircraft. I believed this to be true for every aircraft.There was never an issue with VFR aircraft being a factor for my IFR inbound on the RNAV-Z until when I had an inbound heavy Aircraft X. I had cleared Aircraft X for the RNAV-Z approach; and I was unable to take Aircraft X off the approach; since minimum vectoring altitudes are above the approach altitudes. Then; a VFR aircraft departed off OGG and was switched to me; as I was working R9 & R10 combined. I called on the shout line and asked what type of separation OGG Tower was giving me with the VFR and my Aircraft X on the RNAV-Z approach. The OGG Tower was unaware of any separation being necessary; and I told him about my conversation with a controller about how they would provide separation. The OGG Tower Controller denied any knowledge of this; and basically gave me an aircraft that would not be separated from my heavy on the RNAV-Z approach. I told him to have his supervisor call my supervisor and work out something; because it is unacceptable that OGG Tower will provide no separation for the RNAV-Z approach. After my Supervisor talked to their Supervisor; I was told that OGG Tower does not separate their VFR aircraft from the RNAV-Z. I find this unacceptable that an approach was created where a lack of separation incident is likely to occur.Even though I am required to make a recommendation; I believe this is a dangerous situation that should be handled by our management.Either we make OGG Tower separate their VFR traffic from our IFR inbounds on the RNAV-Z; or we stop using the RNAV-Z approach. If the approach was made that did not provide separation; then it was a very poor approach to implement.My question is: do I keep using this approach? Do I stop using this approach? Do I need to coordinate each time I issue the approach with OGG Tower? Do I tell OGG Tower to stop all VFR departures to the south when I issue the RNAV-Z?Also; I will keep re-stating my concern that R9 & R10 really needs to be de-combined during busy periods. I also strongly believe that R9 & R10 should have been split when we first implemented this new RNAV-Z approach; along with the other new approaches; until we are comfortable with this approach. We were not able to run DYSIM [Dynamic Simulation] problems in the lab to familiarize ourselves with how we would work OGG Approach; under this new conditions; so there is a lot of confusion.I also recommended every ATC who works OGG Approach declare Article 65; every time we work OGG Approach because there isn't a resolution to this problem.I also recommend that we call this sector 'OGG Approach.' It is too confusing for everyone - controllers and pilots - to call this 'HCF Approach;' especially since we have 'HCF Approach' in a different area of our airspace. I believe calling 'OGG Approach' makes the most sense; and the least amount of confusion.This needs to be resolved ASAP. Management needs to address this issue. As far as I know; nothing has been done to prevent a catastrophic incident from occurring.

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.