Approach controller claims that the local controller departed an aircraft contrary to a LOA between ...

Attributes
ACN	341171
Time
Date	199607
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lax
State Reference	CA
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Dawn
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : lax tower : lax
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	climbout : initial
Route In Use	departure sid : sid
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller radar : 8
ASRS Report	341171
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Deviation
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

Violation of sct/la ATCT lda paragraph 7-7(B). Over ocean operation procedures require sct to put arriving aircraft to lax on runway 6R and lax ATCT to depart from opposite complex runway 25R. Volume of arrs was such that a request was made by sct lax area arrs to use runway 7R. This was denied. Lax tower wanted sct to make a 'hole' so they could release a departure. I was unable, again due to amount of traffic to make the required 15 NM hole. Tower controller coordinated with me (sct arrival) stating he had a hole and was releasing an aircraft off runway 25R. I asked if he saw arrival about 10 NM out. Tower said they had a hole and released the aircraft. This was a clear violation of the LOA and although they can do this if they see both aircraft and provide visual separation I believe they did not see the arrival and deliberately released the departure. At no time did the tower advise me that they saw the arrival. They did not tell the coordinator they saw the arrival and when I told them they couldn't release the departure I was told that I did not know what I was talking about. The WX observation at the time was 800 ft overcast. The arrival was about 1800 ft and subsequent arrs reported a cloud layer below that altitude. This is not an isolated incident. This type of thing has happened several times in the past.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH CTLR CLAIMS THAT THE LCL CTLR DEPARTED AN ACFT CONTRARY TO A LOA BTWN THE 2 FACILITIES WITH AN ARRIVING ACFT CLOSER THAN SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT.

Narrative: VIOLATION OF SCT/LA ATCT LDA PARAGRAPH 7-7(B). OVER OCEAN OP PROCS REQUIRE SCT TO PUT ARRIVING ACFT TO LAX ON RWY 6R AND LAX ATCT TO DEPART FROM OPPOSITE COMPLEX RWY 25R. VOLUME OF ARRS WAS SUCH THAT A REQUEST WAS MADE BY SCT LAX AREA ARRS TO USE RWY 7R. THIS WAS DENIED. LAX TWR WANTED SCT TO MAKE A 'HOLE' SO THEY COULD RELEASE A DEP. I WAS UNABLE, AGAIN DUE TO AMOUNT OF TFC TO MAKE THE REQUIRED 15 NM HOLE. TWR CTLR COORDINATED WITH ME (SCT ARR) STATING HE HAD A HOLE AND WAS RELEASING AN ACFT OFF RWY 25R. I ASKED IF HE SAW ARR ABOUT 10 NM OUT. TWR SAID THEY HAD A HOLE AND RELEASED THE ACFT. THIS WAS A CLR VIOLATION OF THE LOA AND ALTHOUGH THEY CAN DO THIS IF THEY SEE BOTH ACFT AND PROVIDE VISUAL SEPARATION I BELIEVE THEY DID NOT SEE THE ARR AND DELIBERATELY RELEASED THE DEP. AT NO TIME DID THE TWR ADVISE ME THAT THEY SAW THE ARR. THEY DID NOT TELL THE COORDINATOR THEY SAW THE ARR AND WHEN I TOLD THEM THEY COULDN'T RELEASE THE DEP I WAS TOLD THAT I DID NOT KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. THE WX OBSERVATION AT THE TIME WAS 800 FT OVCST. THE ARR WAS ABOUT 1800 FT AND SUBSEQUENT ARRS RPTED A CLOUD LAYER BELOW THAT ALT. THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. THIS TYPE OF THING HAS HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.

Approach controller claims that the local controller departed an aircraft contrary to a LOA between the 2 facilities with an arriving aircraft closer than specified in the agreement.