Narrative:

I was working sector X. A B737-800 was on a charted visual approach to runway 30L at the airport. Adjacent traffic on a visual approach to runway 30R was an A321. The A321was being worked by sector Y which is located next to sector X. Sector Y told the A321 to maintain visual separation from the B737. The A321 acknowledged the instruction to the sector Y controller. I advised the B737 to maintain visual separation from the A321. The B737 acknowledged the instruction. The B737 did not use their call sign acknowledging the clearance. According to your report from a random tape monitor you were able to ascertain that it was indeed the B737 who acknowledged the clearance. The report states 'the B737 was instructed to maintain visual separation with the A321; but failed to use a call sign when accepting the clearance.' based on my many years experience working this sector the current light traffic situation at the time; and other factors; I also was able to ascertain that it was indeed the B737 which acknowledged the instruction. Since we were both able to ascertain that the B737 acknowledged the clearance even though they did not use their call sign why is this a problem? Since the A321 was already maintaining visual separation from the B737 why is this a problem? It is true that the B737 wound up slightly in trail of the A321. The A321 acknowledged instructions to maintain visual separation. According to the aim it is the pilot's responsibility to stay in a position to keep the other aircraft in sight. If unable they should advise ATC which the A321 did not. This may be a pilot deviation. Quit wasting time; our TRACON's quality control offices' time; area supervisors' time and controller's time processing this type of non event as an event.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A TRACON Controller described an alledged error during light traffic and side-by visual approach procedures where one aircraft failed to use call signs when instructed to maintain visual separation.

Narrative: I was working Sector X. A B737-800 was on a Charted Visual Approach to Runway 30L at the airport. Adjacent traffic on a Visual Approach to Runway 30R was an A321. The A321was being worked by Sector Y which is located next to Sector X. Sector Y told the A321 to maintain visual separation from the B737. The A321 acknowledged the instruction to the Sector Y Controller. I advised the B737 to maintain visual separation from the A321. The B737 acknowledged the instruction. The B737 did not use their call sign acknowledging the clearance. According to your report from a random tape monitor you were able to ascertain that it was indeed the B737 who acknowledged the clearance. The report states 'The B737 was instructed to maintain visual separation with the A321; but failed to use a call sign when accepting the clearance.' Based on my many years experience working this sector the current light traffic situation at the time; and other factors; I also was able to ascertain that it was indeed the B737 which acknowledged the instruction. Since we were both able to ascertain that the B737 acknowledged the clearance even though they did not use their call sign why is this a problem? Since the A321 was already maintaining visual separation from the B737 why is this a problem? It is true that the B737 wound up slightly in trail of the A321. The A321 acknowledged instructions to maintain visual separation. According to the AIM it is the Pilot's responsibility to stay in a position to keep the other aircraft in sight. If unable they should advise ATC which the A321 did not. This may be a pilot deviation. Quit wasting time; our TRACON's Quality Control offices' time; Area Supervisors' time and Controller's time processing this type of non event as an event.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.