Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working two sectors during smoke and haze conditions requiring all aircraft to pick up IFR flight plans. A large TFR for firefighting was on the east side of my airspace and encroached on the finals for HWD and OAK departures which normally depart on 170 heading across the OAK [Runway] 30 final and towards SFO final which then have to be vectored back across the [Runway] 30 final to the northeast and across the HWD final and then the OAK [Runway] 28 final. Because of the TFR and traffic complexity; I issued a right turn of 040 and maintain 4000 ft. to HWD to issue to Aircraft Y. Per the NorCal TRACON and HWD LOA; released aircraft are to be airborne within 2 minutes. Aircraft X was approximately 11 miles from HWD and cleared for the ILS 30 approach to OAK when I released Aircraft Y. Aircraft Y took 3 mins and 7 seconds to tag up on radar; well outside the LOA requirements. I observed Aircraft Y going upwind and not turning which prompted me to call HWD Tower to confirm the heading to 040 which they affirmed. Aircraft Y was first observed in a turn at 1200 ft. and 1.5 miles upwind. This is well beyond expected pilot performance. Our Quality Control Department is stating that even if Aircraft Y had turned; it would not have been separated because divergence is not permitted with this aircraft. I have looked through JO 7110.65 and found nothing that should prevent me from applying the provisions of that paragraph. I contest that I had applicable divergence separation as Aircraft Y was assigned 040 (and not complying) and Aircraft X was assigned the ILS 30 which is a 296 heading.I am requesting the development of new departure headings and procedures to eliminate the congestion under the OAK final and eliminate the current procedures which are unsafe and nearly unusable given the noise abatement restrictions; which are in effect at all times; and wake re-categorization separation. I also propose new training for how management expects us to get HWD departure aircraft safely out of our airspace given such significant constraints. Also; I'm requesting a follow up to occur with the pilot since he failed to comply with his ATC assigned heading in a timely matter as this was clearly a pilot deviation. Furthermore; had HWD Tower complied with our LOA; I do not believe a conflict would have even been triggered through automation.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported an aircraft departed after the release time and became a conflict with an arrival aircraft into another airport.