Narrative:

I was conducting OJT with a developmental who had only worked the unusual runway configuration once. The developmental (deviation) has no prior radar experience. His training on the adjacent sector had been going well over the past few days; so when we were asked if we would like to conduct OJT on maverick/shore sectors combined with sna north traffic; I asked him if he wanted to. He said he had worked it once before with his primary instructor; and so said; 'yes.' we had no hand-off. I assisted the developmental by performing the hand-off duties (acknowledging departure rundowns; passing him departure strips; typing in pop-up VFR info; etc.) while reviewing the airspace boundaries; hand-offs and procedures. We were 'busy' off the frequency for most of the session; as I tried to explain many of the unusual situations he had never encountered before. Aircraft X popped up VFR requesting flight following to ful. He was radar identified approximately 15 southeast sna. As his flight progressed; I asked the developmental if he was happy where aircraft X's flight path was taking him (across the sna departure corridor). He agreed; no; and so advised aircraft X to 'proceed midfield sna at or above 2;600' (remaining above tower's class-D). The pilot acknowledged. Shortly thereafter; I observed aircraft X approximately 3 miles northeast of sna; northwest bound; still heading for the departure corridor. Again; I pointed this fact out to the developmental. He started to question the pilot; I over-rode him and instructed aircraft X to 'turn left heading 250.' pilot acknowledged. Air carrier Y departed sna on the standard runway heading (014 degrees) assigned 5;000; but checked in advising that he had stopped his climb at 2;000 for traffic. When my attention was brought back to the departure corridor; I observed aircraft X still northwest bound; just crossing the path of air carrier Y at 3;000. I asked aircraft X to 'say heading.' he responded; '320; we're going to ful.' both aircraft pilots contacted our facility after the event; aircraft X after being asked to do so; and air carrier Y on his own. Obviously; conducting OJT with a low-experience developmental with combined sectors; no hand-off; in an unusual runway configuration did contribute to this event. Had we had a hand-off person; my attention would not have been distracted from the radar scope. Cics/flms should take these factors into account when assigning OJT. Tower controllers should be reminded to scan not only the runway environment and upwind when clearing aircraft for departure; but also the departure corridor. Sna is a limited radar facility and clearly could have observed the target that close to their runway.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SCT Controller described a conflict event when traffic assigned a midfield crossing at SNA misidentified the airport and crossed at the departure end conflicting with an Air Carrier departure.

Narrative: I was conducting OJT with a developmental who had only worked the unusual runway configuration once. The developmental (DEV) has no prior RADAR experience. His training on the adjacent sector had been going well over the past few days; so when we were asked if we would like to conduct OJT on Maverick/Shore sectors combined with SNA North Traffic; I asked him if he wanted to. He said he had worked it once before with his primary instructor; and so said; 'Yes.' We had no hand-off. I assisted the developmental by performing the hand-off duties (acknowledging departure rundowns; passing him departure strips; typing in pop-up VFR info; etc.) while reviewing the airspace boundaries; hand-offs and procedures. We were 'busy' off the frequency for most of the session; as I tried to explain many of the unusual situations he had never encountered before. Aircraft X popped up VFR requesting flight following to FUL. He was RADAR identified approximately 15 southeast SNA. As his flight progressed; I asked the developmental if he was happy where Aircraft X's flight path was taking him (across the SNA departure corridor). He agreed; no; and so advised Aircraft X to 'proceed midfield SNA at or above 2;600' (remaining above Tower's Class-D). The pilot acknowledged. Shortly thereafter; I observed Aircraft X approximately 3 miles northeast of SNA; northwest bound; still heading for the departure corridor. Again; I pointed this fact out to the developmental. He started to question the pilot; I over-rode him and instructed Aircraft X to 'Turn left heading 250.' Pilot acknowledged. Air Carrier Y departed SNA on the standard runway heading (014 degrees) assigned 5;000; but checked in advising that he had stopped his climb at 2;000 for traffic. When my attention was brought back to the departure corridor; I observed Aircraft X still northwest bound; just crossing the path of Air Carrier Y at 3;000. I asked Aircraft X to 'say heading.' He responded; '320; we're going to FUL.' Both aircraft pilots contacted our facility after the event; Aircraft X after being asked to do so; and Air Carrier Y on his own. Obviously; conducting OJT with a low-experience developmental with combined sectors; no hand-off; in an unusual runway configuration did contribute to this event. Had we had a hand-off person; my attention would not have been distracted from the RADAR scope. CICs/FLMs should take these factors into account when assigning OJT. Tower controllers should be reminded to scan not only the runway environment and upwind when clearing aircraft for departure; but also the departure corridor. SNA is a limited RADAR facility and clearly could have observed the target that close to their runway.

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.