Narrative:

I was working local 2 but I was aware of the local 1 traffic because he was much busier and I was trying to see if there was anything that I could do. Ground control was issuing an IFR clearance to a departure. We have a messed up procedure where ground control has to ask every departure if 'flying runway heading until leaving 7;500 will allow compliance with terrain and obstruction avoidance'. This allows the local 1 controller to give the departure 'fly runway heading until leaving 7;500 then on course approved'; which will separate the departure from traffic in local 2's airspace west of the airport where drk; the main departure point; is located. I heard the ground controller explain to the pilot that he/she was only asking a question and that it was not a control instruction. When the pilot is confused we are supposed to treat them as an automatic odp which we did not in this case. Then I heard the local 1 controller clear the IFR departure for takeoff and instructed him to fly runway heading. We have been told by the atm that we have to give a self-canceling clearance on these departures and that we cannot just tell them to fly runway heading. The controller working local 1 is very experienced and is an excellent controller but was busy and 'fly runway heading' is ingrained in us to keep our IFR departure out of local 2's airspace without coordination the local 1 controller then apreqed a turn for the IFR toward drk and into my airspace. I approved the turn and advised him that there was helicopter traffic holding over drk at 8;000. We have also been told that it is preferred on IFR departures to frequency change directly to ZAB. The local 1 controller should have given the IFR departure to me on local 2 and I could have issued the traffic. The local 1 controller was busy and should have not been also working the IFR departure west of the airport. We shouldn't even be working the plane outside of class delta airspace but the close proximity to drk compels our controller to issue traffic until they get them in sight. The three issues here: 1. The 'question' that ground control gives to the IFR departures causes a lot of confusion for the pilots and has questionable effectiveness. The local based airplanes know what we are trying to accomplish but the itinerants have no clue. 2. Our controllers still issue 'fly runway heading' in the heat of the battle because of it being ingrained and also because there are so many other high priority things going on when busy. 3. We are not supposed to work aircraft outside of class delta but ZAB is not adequately equipped to do it. Recommendation; the solution to this is difficult. The easy fix would be to develop sids from the airport to address out traffic issues. We need an approach control over the class D. P50 is proposing that they take the airspace from ZAB - I think the best solution is to develop an approach control at prc to work the airspace.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PRC Controller expressed concern regarding the current IFR departure procedure involving questions to the pilot regarding terrain clearance; claiming SIDs should be developed to eliminate this confused procedure.

Narrative: I was working Local 2 but I was aware of the Local 1 traffic because he was much busier and I was trying to see if there was anything that I could do. Ground Control was issuing an IFR clearance to a departure. We have a messed up procedure where Ground Control has to ask every departure if 'flying runway heading until leaving 7;500 will allow compliance with terrain and obstruction avoidance'. This allows the Local 1 Controller to give the departure 'fly runway heading until leaving 7;500 then on course approved'; which will separate the departure from traffic in Local 2's airspace west of the airport where DRK; the main departure point; is located. I heard the Ground Controller explain to the pilot that he/she was only asking a question and that it was not a control instruction. When the pilot is confused we are supposed to treat them as an automatic ODP which we did not in this case. Then I heard the Local 1 Controller clear the IFR departure for takeoff and instructed him to fly runway heading. We have been told by the ATM that we have to give a self-canceling clearance on these departures and that we cannot just tell them to fly runway heading. The Controller working Local 1 is very experienced and is an excellent controller but was busy and 'fly runway heading' is ingrained in us to keep our IFR departure out of Local 2's airspace without coordination the Local 1 Controller then APREQED a turn for the IFR toward DRK and into my airspace. I approved the turn and advised him that there was helicopter traffic holding over DRK at 8;000. We have also been told that it is preferred on IFR departures to frequency change directly to ZAB. The Local 1 Controller should have given the IFR departure to me on Local 2 and I could have issued the traffic. The Local 1 Controller was busy and should have not been also working the IFR departure west of the airport. We shouldn't even be working the plane outside of Class Delta airspace but the close proximity to DRK compels our controller to issue traffic until they get them in sight. The three issues here: 1. The 'question' that Ground Control gives to the IFR departures causes a lot of confusion for the pilots and has questionable effectiveness. The local based airplanes know what we are trying to accomplish but the itinerants have no clue. 2. Our controllers still issue 'fly runway heading' in the heat of the battle because of it being ingrained and also because there are so many other high priority things going on when busy. 3. We are not supposed to work aircraft outside of Class Delta but ZAB is not adequately equipped to do it. Recommendation; the solution to this is difficult. The easy fix would be to develop SIDS from the airport to address out traffic issues. We need an Approach Control over the Class D. P50 is proposing that they take the airspace from ZAB - I think the BEST solution is to develop an approach control at PRC to work the airspace.

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.