Narrative:

A sky hawk called me on ground control requesting VFR ILS approach into sfb. I asked the pilot if he would like an ILS to 9L or 9R. The pilot advised that he could accept 9R since he wanted closed traffic after the approach. I put in the scratch pad entry J I Z which stands for 9R; ILS; closed traffic. I put on the strip a 110 heading which is given to our south departures considering that this aircraft is going to be vectored to our south ILS. I was also taxiing the heavy B767 to runway 9L. I took the sky hawk to 9C in order to get them out in front of the heavy and avoid wake turbulence. Local controller was able to depart the sky hawk on his 110 heading and established radar confirmation and flying the 110 heading which is required by the LOA. He transferred control of the aircraft to orlando approach north sector. After switching the sky hawk; orlando approach north sector accepts the release for the heavy B767 off runway 9L. Local control cleared the heavy for take off on a 080 heading. When the heavy tagged up on our radar we notice that the approach controller turned the sky hawk northbound into the flight path of the heavy B767. The local controller at this point had already transferred radio communications. The approach controller turned both planes; the heavy to a north and the sky hawk to the east to provide separation. There are many flaws in the LOA between our facility and F11. It says that if a plane is going to have an approach into 9L that it should be given a 050 heading. It also states that if the aircraft flight is south of sfb it should have a 110 heading. This creates much confusion as to which heading these aircraft are to be given. I would recommend that our LOA identify which heading approach would like these aircraft on.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A SFB Controller is concerned the ambiguity of the LOA requirements between their facility and MCO TRACON contributed to a conflict when MCO turned a VFR aircraft into the path of an IFR departure.

Narrative: A Sky Hawk called me on Ground Control requesting VFR ILS Approach into SFB. I asked the pilot if he would like an ILS to 9L or 9R. The pilot advised that he could accept 9R since he wanted closed traffic after the approach. I put in the scratch pad entry J I Z which stands for 9R; ILS; Closed Traffic. I put on the strip a 110 heading which is given to our South departures considering that this aircraft is going to be vectored to our South ILS. I was also taxiing the heavy B767 to Runway 9L. I took the Sky Hawk to 9C in order to get them out in front of the Heavy and avoid wake turbulence. Local Controller was able to depart the Sky Hawk on his 110 heading and established RADAR confirmation and flying the 110 heading which is required by the LOA. He transferred control of the aircraft to Orlando Approach North Sector. After switching the Sky Hawk; Orlando Approach North Sector accepts the release for the Heavy B767 off Runway 9L. Local Control cleared the heavy for take off on a 080 heading. When the heavy tagged up on our RADAR we notice that the Approach Controller turned the Sky Hawk northbound into the flight path of the Heavy B767. The Local Controller at this point had already transferred radio communications. The Approach Controller turned both planes; the heavy to a north and the Sky Hawk to the east to provide separation. There are many flaws in the LOA between our facility and F11. It says that if a plane is going to have an approach into 9L that it should be given a 050 heading. It also states that if the aircraft flight is south of SFB it should have a 110 heading. This creates much confusion as to which heading these aircraft are to be given. I would recommend that our LOA identify which heading Approach would like these aircraft on.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.