Narrative:

Aircraft X was descending southbound over the top from nkx airspace north of the airport. Aircraft Y requested a left 270 turn northbound which was denied to avoid conflict with aircraft X. Aircraft Y was issued a right downwind departure and switched to sct. He continued his climb and began converging on aircraft X. I called sct and issued a traffic alert for them. They had already issued traffic as well. The pilot of aircraft X reported the aircraft Y in sight; but said it was close; so a mor was filed. What led to the event was the lack of defined procedures between us and sct when nkx is closed. It is a grey area with no strict definition in the LOA. Traffic comes to us on random routes and sometimes with or without restrictions. Normally; since we have almost no way of knowing (even though scratchpad entries are supposed to be made); I almost always issue 'comply with previous restrictions' to help cover myself. On the same note; the issue is similar in the transitions from nkx to us; because both northbound and southbound aircraft are issued the same altitudes which have resulted in conflicts on some occasions. The sct-myf LOA needs to define clear procedures to follow for coordination of aircraft through the class B northbound and southbound. As it is; we have nothing in writing; and there is no standard; except for the inefficient 'class B' clearance which we find confuses some sct controllers. What we need are clearly defined routes and altitudes for VFR aircraft to help prevent this sort of situation. There is nothing in place; it is just seat-of-the-pants controlling. The same issue needs to be addressed with the nkx-myf LOA to define routes and/or altitudes to be flown in order to avoid the pre-programmed conflict.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MYF Controller described a conflict event involving an arrival VFR aircraft; the reporter claiming the procedures with SCT need to be revised to more clearly define routes/procedures and coordination to be used in these types of situations.

Narrative: Aircraft X was descending southbound over the top from NKX airspace north of the airport. Aircraft Y requested a left 270 turn northbound which was denied to avoid conflict with Aircraft X. Aircraft Y was issued a right downwind departure and switched to SCT. He continued his climb and began converging on Aircraft X. I called SCT and issued a traffic alert for them. They had already issued traffic as well. The pilot of Aircraft X reported the Aircraft Y in sight; but said it was close; so a MOR was filed. What led to the event was the lack of defined procedures between us and SCT when NKX is closed. It is a grey area with no strict definition in the LOA. Traffic comes to us on random routes and sometimes with or without restrictions. Normally; since we have almost no way of knowing (even though scratchpad entries are supposed to be made); I almost always issue 'comply with previous restrictions' to help cover myself. On the same note; the issue is similar in the transitions from NKX to us; because both northbound and southbound aircraft are issued the same altitudes which have resulted in conflicts on some occasions. The SCT-MYF LOA needs to define clear procedures to follow for coordination of aircraft through the Class B northbound and southbound. As it is; we have nothing in writing; and there is no standard; except for the inefficient 'Class B' clearance which we find confuses some SCT controllers. What we need are clearly defined routes and altitudes for VFR aircraft to help prevent this sort of situation. There is nothing in place; it is just seat-of-the-pants controlling. The same issue needs to be addressed with the NKX-MYF LOA to define routes and/or altitudes to be flown in order to avoid the pre-programmed conflict.

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.