Narrative:

Aircraft involved medium large transport manually handed off to my sector at FL350 along with several other aircraft, one being widebody transport at FL390. Both aircraft wbound over eck VOR J94 pmm VOR. Another aircraft, large transport, J68 fnt J68 bae to sea also a factor at FL350. Large transport and medium large transport were tied at fnt at FL350. Medium large transport being slower was issued present heading to parallel large transport and fall behind for sep. Medium large transport requested direct onl VOR. This would help situation but, coordination with ZAU required first. Medium large transport was so advised. Widebody transport at FL390 needed descent to FL310 according to letter of agreement with ZAU. Widebody transport issued descent to FL370. Medium large transport wbound, and widebody transport swbound. When 6 mi or greater sep attained. Widebody transport was turned to a 275 degree heading to parallel large transport an medium large transport. Approximately 20 mi west of eck VOR all aircraft observed wbound and separated with vector lines out decision was made it was safe to descend widebody transport to FL310 through medium large transport and large transport. About 5 mi later medium large transport made a sharp turn to south (approximately 210 degree heading) directly at widebody transport. At first I thought I'd had a bad hit on radar. However, upon second return, medium large transport was issued 360 degree heading for traffic avoidance. Aircraft about 7 mi apart when 360 degree heading issued. However too late to avoid loss of sep. Aircraft passed within 4 mi and 1000' of each other. When asked why he (medium large transport) turned southbound pilot stated because I hadn't gotten back to him on direct onl VOR so he turned on course. Sector was very busy at time and traffic complex. 15-18 aircraft on frequency at time. Needless handoff line coordination required by msp tvc high sector which diverted attention from radar scope. If medium large transport would have questioned status on direct onl request rather than on course, error would not have occurred. Some question has been raised as to if medium large transport received present heading clearance or if clearance was blocked by frequency congestion. If medium large transport did not receive heading, then aircraft was some 20 or more miles off course to northwest and should have advised controller he in fact was returning to assigned routing. If again medium large transport did not receive present heading aircraft should have turned swbound at eck VOR and thus never conflicted with widebody transport at FL370. All voice tapesat this time have not been heard and judgement not yet rendered as to who was at fault. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: the reporter stated that this incident was investigated and classified as a pilot deviation with controller contribution. The reporter does not agree that he is a factor in this incident. He said that he transmitted to the medium large transport to maintain present heading while he coordination with ZAU. However, due to headset malfunction, it did not transmit. The headset was later examined and a loose wire was found. The facility determined that his involvement was for not receiving a pilot acknowledgement. A pilot deviation was filed based on the medium large transport proceeding on requested course west/O clearance. The reporter said that sep was 3.8 mi and 1100'. ATC experience is 10 yrs radar and 4 yrs non radar. The reporter had a data controller assisting during complex traffic. Supplemental information from acn 103394: approaching eck VOR on approximately 275 degree heading we requested a radar vector to onl. The cle ATC controller said, 'standby while I check with chicago center.' shortly after passing over eck VOR and not having received a response from the controller about our vector request. We turned left to intercept J94 which was our filed route. The controller then instructed us to turn right to 360 degrees and said, 'why did you turn left, you violated another aircraft's airspace.' we turned right to 360 degrees and subsequently were given a 275 degree vector for onl. Since the distance between eck VOR and fnt VOR is only 4-8 NM, we made a larger than normal heading correction to intercept the centerline of J94. However, at no time did we ever pass south (or left) of the centerline of J94. We can only assume that the controller thought he had given us a radar vector north of J94. The first officer and I are very positive that no such clearance was given. After switching to chicago center we requested verification of our filed route. Chicago center verified that our routing was J94 from eck to obk as indicated on our computer flight plan. We can only conclude that if there was a violation of airspace it was the result of the controller assuming that he had cleared us for a radar vector north of J94. In retrospect I would have questioned the controller about our vector request before turning left to intercept J94. Supplemental information from acn 103288: looking back we maybe should have questioned the traffic's distance ahead. We probably will do that more in the future. In this case, however, the traffic appeared well ahead and to our left.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WDB DESCENDED THROUGH ALT OF MLG. LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION OCCURRED DUE TO PLT DEVIATION FROM ATC CLRNC.

Narrative: ACFT INVOLVED MLG MANUALLY HANDED OFF TO MY SECTOR AT FL350 ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER ACFT, ONE BEING WDB AT FL390. BOTH ACFT WBOUND OVER ECK VOR J94 PMM VOR. ANOTHER ACFT, LGT, J68 FNT J68 BAE TO SEA ALSO A FACTOR AT FL350. LGT AND MLG WERE TIED AT FNT AT FL350. MLG BEING SLOWER WAS ISSUED PRESENT HDG TO PARALLEL LGT AND FALL BEHIND FOR SEP. MLG REQUESTED DIRECT ONL VOR. THIS WOULD HELP SITUATION BUT, COORD WITH ZAU REQUIRED FIRST. MLG WAS SO ADVISED. WDB AT FL390 NEEDED DSCNT TO FL310 ACCORDING TO LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH ZAU. WDB ISSUED DSCNT TO FL370. MLG WBOUND, AND WDB SWBOUND. WHEN 6 MI OR GREATER SEP ATTAINED. WDB WAS TURNED TO A 275 DEG HDG TO PARALLEL LGT AN MLG. APPROX 20 MI W OF ECK VOR ALL ACFT OBSERVED WBOUND AND SEPARATED WITH VECTOR LINES OUT DECISION WAS MADE IT WAS SAFE TO DSND WDB TO FL310 THROUGH MLG AND LGT. ABOUT 5 MI LATER MLG MADE A SHARP TURN TO S (APPROX 210 DEG HDG) DIRECTLY AT WDB. AT FIRST I THOUGHT I'D HAD A BAD HIT ON RADAR. HOWEVER, UPON SECOND RETURN, MLG WAS ISSUED 360 DEG HDG FOR TFC AVOIDANCE. ACFT ABOUT 7 MI APART WHEN 360 DEG HDG ISSUED. HOWEVER TOO LATE TO AVOID LOSS OF SEP. ACFT PASSED WITHIN 4 MI AND 1000' OF EACH OTHER. WHEN ASKED WHY HE (MLG) TURNED SBND PLT STATED BECAUSE I HADN'T GOTTEN BACK TO HIM ON DIRECT ONL VOR SO HE TURNED ON COURSE. SECTOR WAS VERY BUSY AT TIME AND TFC COMPLEX. 15-18 ACFT ON FREQ AT TIME. NEEDLESS HDOF LINE COORD REQUIRED BY MSP TVC HIGH SECTOR WHICH DIVERTED ATTN FROM RADAR SCOPE. IF MLG WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED STATUS ON DIRECT ONL REQUEST RATHER THAN ON COURSE, ERROR WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. SOME QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED AS TO IF MLG RECEIVED PRESENT HDG CLRNC OR IF CLRNC WAS BLOCKED BY FREQ CONGESTION. IF MLG DID NOT RECEIVE HDG, THEN ACFT WAS SOME 20 OR MORE MILES OFF COURSE TO NW AND SHOULD HAVE ADVISED CTLR HE IN FACT WAS RETURNING TO ASSIGNED ROUTING. IF AGAIN MLG DID NOT RECEIVE PRESENT HDG ACFT SHOULD HAVE TURNED SWBOUND AT ECK VOR AND THUS NEVER CONFLICTED WITH WDB AT FL370. ALL VOICE TAPESAT THIS TIME HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD AND JUDGEMENT NOT YET RENDERED AS TO WHO WAS AT FAULT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE RPTR STATED THAT THIS INCIDENT WAS INVESTIGATED AND CLASSIFIED AS A PLTDEV WITH CTLR CONTRIBUTION. THE RPTR DOES NOT AGREE THAT HE IS A FACTOR IN THIS INCIDENT. HE SAID THAT HE XMITTED TO THE MLG TO MAINTAIN PRESENT HDG WHILE HE COORD WITH ZAU. HOWEVER, DUE TO HEADSET MALFUNCTION, IT DID NOT XMIT. THE HEADSET WAS LATER EXAMINED AND A LOOSE WIRE WAS FOUND. THE FAC DETERMINED THAT HIS INVOLVEMENT WAS FOR NOT RECEIVING A PLT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. A PLT DEVIATION WAS FILED BASED ON THE MLG PROCEEDING ON REQUESTED COURSE W/O CLRNC. THE RPTR SAID THAT SEP WAS 3.8 MI AND 1100'. ATC EXPERIENCE IS 10 YRS RADAR AND 4 YRS NON RADAR. THE RPTR HAD A DATA CTLR ASSISTING DURING COMPLEX TFC. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 103394: APCHING ECK VOR ON APPROX 275 DEG HDG WE REQUESTED A RADAR VECTOR TO ONL. THE CLE ATC CTLR SAID, 'STANDBY WHILE I CHK WITH CHICAGO CENTER.' SHORTLY AFTER PASSING OVER ECK VOR AND NOT HAVING RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THE CTLR ABOUT OUR VECTOR REQUEST. WE TURNED LEFT TO INTERCEPT J94 WHICH WAS OUR FILED ROUTE. THE CTLR THEN INSTRUCTED US TO TURN RIGHT TO 360 DEGS AND SAID, 'WHY DID YOU TURN LEFT, YOU VIOLATED ANOTHER ACFT'S AIRSPACE.' WE TURNED RIGHT TO 360 DEGS AND SUBSEQUENTLY WERE GIVEN A 275 DEG VECTOR FOR ONL. SINCE THE DISTANCE BTWN ECK VOR AND FNT VOR IS ONLY 4-8 NM, WE MADE A LARGER THAN NORMAL HDG CORRECTION TO INTERCEPT THE CENTERLINE OF J94. HOWEVER, AT NO TIME DID WE EVER PASS S (OR LEFT) OF THE CENTERLINE OF J94. WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THE CTLR THOUGHT HE HAD GIVEN US A RADAR VECTOR N OF J94. THE F/O AND I ARE VERY POSITIVE THAT NO SUCH CLRNC WAS GIVEN. AFTER SWITCHING TO CHICAGO CENTER WE REQUESTED VERIFICATION OF OUR FILED ROUTE. CHICAGO CENTER VERIFIED THAT OUR ROUTING WAS J94 FROM ECK TO OBK AS INDICATED ON OUR COMPUTER FLT PLAN. WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT IF THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF AIRSPACE IT WAS THE RESULT OF THE CTLR ASSUMING THAT HE HAD CLRED US FOR A RADAR VECTOR N OF J94. IN RETROSPECT I WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE CTLR ABOUT OUR VECTOR REQUEST BEFORE TURNING LEFT TO INTERCEPT J94. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 103288: LOOKING BACK WE MAYBE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE TFC'S DISTANCE AHEAD. WE PROBABLY WILL DO THAT MORE IN THE FUTURE. IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE TFC APPEARED WELL AHEAD AND TO OUR LEFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.