Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80; Tower PDX
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound to PDX to do touch and goes. The aircraft appeared on course to enter towers airspace through the VFR arrival gate described in our Letter of Agreement. Tower accepted the handoff on the aircraft and seeing no conflicts I had Aircraft X contact Tower. At this point Aircraft X was still 3 miles outside of Towers airspace. I began to notice that Aircraft X had turned to a track that would not position him through the gate. I called Tower on the line to advise them that the aircraft had turned and was not making the gate and they responded 'no problem'. The Tower had departed Aircraft Y and turned them to a 240 degree heading shortly after talking to Aircraft X. When Aircraft X checked on with Tower he asked to fly 020 heading and Tower missed it. Tower asked Aircraft X if he would turn to the east and they responded 'we want to fly 020 and tower missed it. Aircraft Y and Aircraft X ended up opposite direction of each other same altitude and less than a mile apart. Aircraft Y advised tower that they had responded to an RA due to Aircraft X. Tower logged the RA and upon review of the incident by Quality Assurance it was determined that I had an operational deviation because the aircraft had not entered towers airspace through the VFR gate. Tower acted with gross negligence launching an aircraft into known traffic that was on their frequency. They had up to 3 minutes to issue control instructions to separate the 2 planes but did nothing.Re-training the tower controllers on use of divergent headings when there is known traffic on a track directly at the departure heading.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller handed off a VFR aircraft to the Tower. The TRACON Controller believed the VFR aircraft would proceed through a VFR entry point as in the facility procedures. The Tower Controller allowed the VFR aircraft to deviate away from the prescribed route. An IFR aircraft departed from the airport and was issued a heading by the Tower which placed it into conflict with the VFR aircraft. The IFR aircraft received and responded to a TCAS RA for the VFR aircraft. Facility Quality Assurance personnel charged the TRACON Controller with an Operational Error.