Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: The airport configuration was landing and departing runways 28.  I was working Flight Data/Clearance Delivery (FD/CD) and was also signed onto the facility log as the Operations Supervisor.  Light traffic; I assumed FD/CD duties to accomplish training.  I was processing flight progress strips when I overheard the Local trainee and instructor discuss a problem between two departures.  I walked over to the Local position and observed Aircraft Y on the Porte 7 Departure Procedure (DP); 1.5 miles west SFO at 1;900 feet and Aircraft X on the Wesla 1 DP rotating on runway 28L. Both SIDS are straight-out and both aircraft are maintaining 3;000 feet interim altitude. The Local trainee said she thought Aircraft X was a right turn departure and departed Aircraft X 6;000 feet and airborne behind Aircraft Y.  Local Assist attempted to coordinate a diverging heading with Northern California TRACON (NCT) departure sector but they declined the request.  I initially observed 2;000 feet of altitude separation between both aircraft and it diminished to 1;200 feet. I was concerned that NCT would not continue Aircraft Y's climb through 3;000 feet immediately thereby losing 1;000 foot vertical separation.  I instructed the Local trainee to have Aircraft X maintain 2;500 feet to comply with the MVA and hoping to slow Aircraft X's climb rate.  The 2;500 foot altitude restriction was issued to Aircraft X and they were shipped to NCT departure sector.  The 1;000 foot altitude separation between both aircraft was always maintained; so there was no loss between the aircraft. I later learned the MVA west of SFO is 2;600 feet.  2;500 feet was the old MVA prior to being changed.  I was briefed on the new change; but I only recalled the 2;500 foot number. My error resulted in a MVA loss of separation.  Low ceiling to the west prevented Local from applying visual separation between both aircraft. The facility will be receiving Advanced Electronic Flight Strips (AEFS) in the fall; replacing our current paper flight progress strips.  AEFS will enhance our operation by allowing FLM's to observe Local's departure order from the back of the cab without having to hover directly behind the controller.




Synopsis: A SFO Front Line Manager (FLM) reports of an airborne conflict he observes that local is having a problem with. Coordination with Northern California TRACON (NCT) is attempted but the resolution is denied by NCT. In order to save 1;000 feet between the aircraft the FLM instructs local to have the aircraft maintain a specific altitude below the higher aircraft. The altitude to maintain was below the MVA which had recently changed by 100 feet higher; causing an airspace deviation.