Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT; Tower SQL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X is inbound to SQL airport which is located in Woodside Sectors airspace. LICKE sector works the SQL IFR approach into SQL starting at AMEBY which is on the boundary of LICKE and Woodside's airspace. LICKE sector has to accomplish up to three point outs with the SQL IFR approach; point out to the TOGA sector; point out to the Woodside Sector and depends what altitude the approach crosses AMEBY point out to NUQ tower.Aircraft X is inbound to AMEBY for the RNAV Runway30 approach to SQL. Toga point out has been accomplished the Woodside point out is in the process of a point out via automated point out procedure. Woodside calls the LICKE sector and instructs LICKE to spin Aircraft X once and then bring it in and they WILL TAKE THE POINT OUT at that time because they released a SQL IFR departure. LICKE sector instructs Aircraft X who is on an approximate 320 heading to turn left to a heading of 180. That's when I relieve the LICKE controller. A moment later I see the SQL departure depart SQL; I instruct Aircraft X to go direct AMEBY for the approach. We spun Aircraft X like the Woodside sector instructed us to do. Aircraft X made a left turn to AMEBY and made the 360 route that Woodside instructed. When I saw Aircraft X was direct AMBEY I cleared Aircraft X for the RNAV approach starting at AMEBY fully expecting Woodside to accept the point out like they stated they would. Aircraft X was approaching Woodside's airspace again and has yet to accept the automated point out. I am not sure about the sequence events next. Woodside sector calls for coordination on their SQL departure. Woodside stated they are going to take the departure eastbound into Aircraft X the SQL arrival. I gave instructions as a receiving controller to take the aircraft south to go behind Aircraft X. So Aircraft X can continue inbound for the approach. The instruction seems to confuse the transferring controller. I then clarified to take the aircraft over OSI VOR and depart Woodside on a 110 heading which is a standard route to alleviate the confusion. Coordination ended at that. Woodside has yet to take the Point Out on Aircraft X. I call Woodside to accomplish a manual point out. Woodside refused to accept the point out because of the SQL departure in which I already gave instruction to resolve the conflict. I felt Woodside was being obstinate in refusing to take the point out. All conflicts were resolved and there was no other conflict to let Aircraft X continue inbound on the approach and for the Woodside controller to accept the point out. Instead of delaying the Aircraft X aircraft again I told the Woodside sector that Aircraft X was continuing inbound. We spun Aircraft X like Woodside instructed and anticipated that Woodside would accept the point out like they instructed. Woodside then refused to take the point out and the airspace design around AMEBY does not leave us many options to hold in our airspace that close to the IAF. Aircraft X continued the approach; landed going through Woodside's airspace without a point out with no other incidents.This conflict is with two different sectors in two different areas of the building. One sector works the departures that depart opposite direction head on with another sector in another area working the arrival into the same airport which is SQL. It causes confusion; there is a break down on who is doing what.I suggest the SQL arrivals and departures are worked by the same area and same controller; this would alleviate the coordination between two different areas. SQL airport in located in Woodside's airspace and JEFNY an IAF for the RNAV approach to SQL which is in Woodside's airspace. I recommend that the IFR arrivals be routed over JEFNY and be worked by the Woodside controller this way one sector and one area can work out the delay or sequence for the opposite direction departure vs the arrival. It would no longer have the confusion of coordination control instruction and accepting point outs.




Synopsis: NCT TRACON Controller reported about confusion; an airspace violation and constant problems associated with an airport where one sector works the arrival and another sector works the departure.