Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SFO airport configuration was landing runway 28L/R and departing runway 01L/R. The primary SID in use for Richmond Sector was the Trukn SID. SFO tower scanned Aircraft X flight plan which showed Trukn SID. The departure controllers were expecting this pilot to depart runway 01 on the Trukn SID. Aircraft X departed runway 28 on we had no idea what route or altitude. When the pilot was queried on what departure he was issued and what altitude he had been assigned; it was discovered he was re-cleared on the Santana SID and stopped at 3;000 feet by the tower. But we had no idea; so we have to act based on the assumption the pilot was departing runway 28 on the Trukn SID; which is a right turn heading 040 and climbing to 19000 feet. Instead of the pilot departing directly into Richmond airspace as expected; the pilot departed into Sutro Sector airspace without prior coordination. Per LOA (Letter of Agreement); the tower is required to scan the strip noting Runway 28 departure for all flights that will depart Runway 28 on this configuration to departure control. This did not happen. Nor was there any verbal coordination. Departure control bases all control instructions/separation on what is scanned on the flight plan strips received from SFO tower. SFO tower does not seem to understand the importance of communicating amended flight plan information to the departure controllers because this happens with alarming frequency. This is the second incident of this type I have witnessed this week.SFO tower usually claims the strip was scanned correctly. I have no idea if this excuse is being used as a 'get out of jail free' card or if there is truly an equipment issue. The result is; we have aircraft entering another controller's airspace without prior coordination resulting in potential loss of separation with other aircraft. SFO tower also claims that amended flight plan information need not be forwarded to departure control because it is covered in the NCT/SFO LOA. I am not sure why the tower feels the LOA replaces required coordination of amended flight plan information; but this misunderstanding introduces unnecessary high risk of loss of separation into the NAS. The LOA states what CAN be assigned based on runway/flow configurations; not what HAS been assigned. We have no way of knowing if the flight plan has been amended from what was originally scanned unless the tower makes and FDIO amendment and re-scans; or verbally coordinates the change directly with the [other controllers]. It's that simple. Our responsibilities are clearly stated in the air traffic order. You cannot enter another controller's airspace without prior coordination. We are required to electronically or verbally forward amended flight plan information to the receiving controller. Whatever is on the IFR flight strip is exactly what the receiving controller is expecting the pilot to execute. I recommend that SFO tower comply with the requirements regarding entering another controller's airspace and forwarding of amended flight plan information.


Second narrative: I was working Local and Assist combined. There were two closed runways (1L & 28L) and two open runways (1R & 28R). SFO was landing Runway 28R and departing Runway 1R. I had auto releases for all departures. Ground and I coordinated they would scan departures strips when able; and if not I would do it.After [the runways opened] we were normal operations but I still had the assist combined. Ground taxied a SNTNA SID aircraft to Runway 28R at E. I had trouble reaching the aircraft at first. The strip had been passed to me and I scanned them straight-out Runway 28 with a 'dot' for the scan and crossing out the 'T' for TRACON release. The aircraft departed once in communication and when space opened up to get them out.About ten minutes later I heard the outside phone ring and the Controller in Charge approached my used strips to look up the departures. The ONLY aircraft that could have been in question was Aircraft X since they were the only one to depart the other than the advertised runway. The TRACON claims the 'Straight 28' did not print. I have no idea why this would have been; and they subsequently had us scan the next 'Straight 28' departure and verbally check to see that it was working correctly. It did.


Synopsis: NCT TRACON Departure Controller reported an aircraft departed on a different route than was coordinated via automated strip scanning from the Tower. The Tower Controller states they accomplished the automated strip scan correctly.