Sct controller described technical loss of separation event between hhr and lax arrival aircraft; re...

Narrative:

IFR citation on approach to hhr. Air carrier Y [was] on approach to lax. Simultaneous positions open to monitor; since the waiver to have simultaneous approaches to lax and hhr has expired. I observed visual approach scratch pad on air carrier Y; and asked the downey controller whether the citation had air carrier Y in sight or to verify the scratch pad was erroneous. I could not hear his answer; so asked the supervisor at PM2 to relay. There was not a way to resolve the situation at that point. Downey was in the middle of a relief briefing; and busy; and did not hear me either. I found out afterward that the scratch pad was correct (visual approach) and that the hhr did not have air carrier Y in sight. There is no procedure for scratch pad on hhr arrival if they are maintaining visual separation from lax arrival traffic. I did not believe that the aircraft were in any danger at any point. The requirement for simultaneous monitors to be opened for lax and hhr arrivals to execute instrument approaches at the same time; and for all aircraft to be on ILS approaches is different from the procedures that we have used for the past 15 plus years for lax arrivals vs. Hhr arrivals for separation. I believe that there is inconsistency in the application; and not clear language for resolution to this type of situation. Recommendation; the waiver needs to be reinstated. I do not believe that there is a safety problem between lax arrivals and hhr arrivals making approaches at the same time. Having the monitors open for this operation is having a confusing and negative impact on our already critical staffing at this facility. When an aircraft is cleared for a visual approach; all conflicts are resolved. This should be sufficient for this operation; i.e. That all conflicts are resolved.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SCT Controller described technical loss of separation event between HHR and LAX arrival aircraft; reporter noted the long standing waiver permitting this type of operation has not been reissued and the interim procedure is confusing.

Narrative: IFR Citation on approach to HHR. Air Carrier Y [was] on approach to LAX. Simultaneous positions open to monitor; since the waiver to have simultaneous approaches to LAX and HHR has expired. I observed visual approach scratch pad on Air Carrier Y; and asked the Downey Controller whether the Citation had Air Carrier Y in sight or to verify the scratch pad was erroneous. I could not hear his answer; so asked the Supervisor at PM2 to relay. There was not a way to resolve the situation at that point. Downey was in the middle of a relief briefing; and busy; and did not hear me either. I found out afterward that the scratch pad was correct (visual approach) and that the HHR did not have Air Carrier Y in sight. There is no procedure for scratch pad on HHR arrival if they are maintaining visual separation from LAX arrival traffic. I did not believe that the aircraft were in any danger at any point. The requirement for simultaneous monitors to be opened for LAX and HHR arrivals to execute instrument approaches at the same time; and for all aircraft to be on ILS approaches is different from the procedures that we have used for the past 15 plus years for LAX arrivals vs. HHR arrivals for separation. I believe that there is inconsistency in the application; and not clear language for resolution to this type of situation. Recommendation; the waiver needs to be reinstated. I do not believe that there is a safety problem between LAX arrivals and HHR arrivals making approaches at the same time. Having the monitors open for this operation is having a confusing and negative impact on our already critical staffing at this facility. When an aircraft is cleared for a visual approach; all conflicts are resolved. This should be sufficient for this operation; i.e. that all conflicts are resolved.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.

Attributes
ACN	880350
Time
Date	201003
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	SCT.TRACON
State Reference	CA
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Other Instrument Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Person 1
Function	Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types

Sct controller described technical loss of separation event between hhr and lax arrival aircraft; reporter noted the long standing waiver permitting this type of operation has not been reissued and the interim procedure is confusing.