Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Clearance Delivery and Controller in Charge (CIC). Local Control was getting releases for the NIITE SID off of Runway's 28 as we were 28/28 due to strong wind out of the west. TRACON was releasing aircraft initially heading 050. The Local Controller acknowledged and was going to clear their first aircraft. I advised them we cannot just turn right heading 050 as there needs to be a SID assigned that includes the climb gradient for Mt San Bruno northwest of the airport. Local control called back to TRACON and said as mush; and offered to put the aircraft on the SHOR7 heading 050 vector first fix. TRACON agreed and then said go SHOR7 heading 070. I have never seen a 070 assignment.Local control worked through the lineup; and when they got to Aircraft X; the pilot asked if they were still on the NIITE. This occurred while the Local Controller was offline coordinating the next three releases; of which Aircraft X was number one. The Local Controller came back to Aircraft X and said to fly the SHOR7 departure heading 070. The pilot asked for rest of enroute to connect to their route. The Local Controller then stated SHOR7 070 vector SYRAH. The pilot read it back. When the Local Controller cleared the aircraft for takeoff; the pilot asked if after LIN they should expect JSICA. The aircraft was never cleared over LIN; just filed for by the company. The Local Controller clarified SYRAH Q128 JSICA ILC as filed. The pilot rogered the route and said cleared for takeoff.I believe the origination of this issue was a miss read PDC; where the company had filed KSFO SHOR7 LIN JSICA ILC and the original preferential departure route assigned was KSFO NIITE3 SYRAH Q128 JSICA ILC then as filed. If the SYRAH Q128...was picked up all would have been navigable.The bottom line is that our noise abatement needs to be fully reviewed based on the fact that TRACON uses a 050 heading for most departures to avoid delay reporting. That is fine if we are working towards a solution for the long term; however; with all of the Operations of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex that is being introduced to the operations between SFO; NCT; and ZOA; this is just skewing any possible data accuracy and is beneficial only to SFO; OAK; and NCT; whereas the East Bay communities south of OAK are now bearing the brunt of the noise (traffic) and every single one is a required point out within NCT airspace between two entirely different areas. There has been an incredible amount of time; energy; and resources that the airlines have had to invest all to be told 'fly heading; climb and maintain.' This seems to be something that could come back to bite the agency under the scrutiny of an investigation; should something ever go wrong. Let's address this once and for all.




Synopsis: Flight crew did not detect that their PDC was different than what was filed by their company. The Tower Controller did not believe the TRACON's departure procedures were efficient and caused noise pollution over certain communities.