Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 7
Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Procedure
Aircraft X; called me for transition to SQL airport.  I cleared Aircraft X into the class B airspace at 4;000.  SFO is in RWY 28 Shoreline Departure configuration due to construction/repair.  Just south of the Golden Gate Bridge; I assigned Aircraft X a heading of 180 to remain clear of Richmond departures that were turning east to a heading of 040.  SFO Tower departed Aircraft Y on a REBAS departure.  This departure is supposed to make a right turn to intercept the SFO 342 degree radial climbing to 5;000.  Immediately in trail Aircraft Z was departed on a Shoreline Departure.  This departure makes a right turn to a heading of 040 climbing to 10;000.  Richmond; myself; and the CI-1 noticed that Aircraft Y was not turning.  Nothing had been coordinated with CI-1; so we had no idea what was happening.  As a precaution; I assigned Aircraft X a heading of 240 in order to provide as much space as possible to protect both him and Aircraft Y.  Aircraft Y began a northbound turn still talking with the Tower.  Aircraft Y is at 021 feet in a 2;600 foot MVA and heading right at the obstruction at Mt. San Bruno.  The next MVA is 2;900 feet. Aircraft Y checks on with Richmond and is sorted out from there.  I assigned a heading 160 to Aircraft X to continue his transition.  The next departure is Aircraft Z on a REBAS departure.  Richmond and I immediately observe that the aircraft is not turning and Aircraft X is now an immediate conflict.  Right behind Aircraft Z is Aircraft A a Heavy on the Shoreline Departure.  I instruct Aircraft X to turn right heading 300 as quickly as possible to move him away from the Aircraft Z climbing to 5;000.  There was no altitude separation at this time.  The CI-1 immediately got on the line with SFO Tower and issued an amended altitude of 3;000 to Aircraft Z.  We were not talking with any of the SFO departures at this point.  This situation was totally out of control and just plain dangerous.  The deficiencies and incorrect actions on behalf of the Tower are appalling.  Anything other than what is spelled out in the LOA must be coordinated/apreqed with the CI-1.  The Tower Controller issued control instructions that entered another controller's airspace without approval or coordination.  This resulted in conflict (Aircraft X) twice.  [This operation] demonstrated a lack of understanding and or knowledge regarding vectoring aircraft below the MVA.  It is reasonable to assume; based on these actions; the Controller does not understand that when an aircraft is vectored off of a SID; the Controller assumes responsibility for terrain separation.  If my sector had been busy; we could be talking about near mid air collisions in addition to conflicting with VFR aircraft and colliding with planet earth.  As I returned from my break from writing this report; the same scenario occurred again with a different controller.  That this happened a third time with a different controller suggests the strong possibility that some of the controllers at SFO Tower have gotten together and decided that this procedure is within their authority and is ok.  This needs to be addressed immediately.  Permission to forward this report granted.
I was working the Richmond Sector; traffic was moderate. SFO is on the 28/28 Shoreline configuration. I observed Aircraft Y (scanned as a REBAS Departure) come off the airport.  He flew runway heading (280 Heading) for about 2 miles before turning which is not what they normally do on the SID.  I then observed Aircraft B depart (scanned as Shoreline Departure); he was about a mile behind Aircraft Y turning to 043 heading as per the SID. [Another Sector] had a VFR Aircraft X transitioning to SQL at 040.  I didn't have communication with Aircraft Y who; because of his altered departure path; came into conflict with Aircraft X.  [The other Sector] had to turn Aircraft X to the southwest to avoid the traffic.  Not only did Aircraft Y become a conflict with Aircraft X but he was turned by the Tower below the MVA 2;100; aimed at the depicted obstacle which is in a 2;600 foot MVA.There was no coordination with the CI-1 for Aircraft Y to come off the REBAS departure.  Mere moments later; as the NCT FLM is coming off the phone with the SFO FLM about the first pair; the same situation happens again with two different aircraft.  Aircraft Z departs SFO (REBAS Departure); I observe the aircraft fly runway heading again; followed by Aircraft A (Shoreline Departure).  Aircraft X is about 5 miles west of the airport at 4000 southbound.  Aircraft Z because of his altered departure path is now aimed right at Aircraft X.  CI-1 called over to SFO to stop Aircraft Z at 3;000.  [The other Sector] gives Aircraft X a drastic turn to the west.  Both actions were necessary to avoid a near mid air collision.About an hour later; same situation occurs with Aircraft C and Aircraft D.  I was working the [other] Sector and there was no traffic to conflict this time.  It was a different person working Local; so it appears more than one CPC thinks this situation is perfectly acceptable.If some SFO personnel believe that vectoring aircraft in someone else's airspace; below the MVA is good operating technique; then maybe some remedial training or performance review is needed.I would also recommend putting SFO on call for release on the REBAS departures to avoid this type of scenario.
NCT controllers describe situation where SFO Tower launches aircraft into NCT airspace not correctly separated causing the Controller to have to react and separate traffic.