Narrative:

An E135 was on a vector toward the ILS approach for runway 36L. He was descending from about 3;500 ft to 3;000 ft approximately 5 south of gky within the bravo. He went into conflict alert with a VFR at approximately 2;000 ft. I watched him climb to about 2;200 ft and he was climbing slowly as many do since they are below the bravo. The E135 was in a normal descent already slowing his descent to level at 3;000 ft. The aircraft were not climbing or descending at any rate which should have caused the conflict alert to go off and were about 5 miles apart still. Since the VFR was not a factor; not climbing at a high rate or anything like that and they were still altitude wise 1;200-1;400 ft apart; traffic was not issued; just another false alert as has been the case with this new system. I issued instructions to a couple other aircraft and when I looked back at the E135 the VFR traffic had now climbed to 2;700 ft and they were about 1 mile apart. I issued traffic at 10 o'clock and the E135 said he was responding to an RA. The conflict alert and low altitude alert were going off much more since we changed to the stars system. Yesterday approximately 60% of the arrivals at dal on a north flow during one session went into low altitude alert. So much that I just stopped issuing them to the tower. I talked to our national tamr (stars representative) and explained what happened with the E135 and he said 'I know we are getting a lot of those'. This is a problem as when you get so many false cas or las. After you have so many or observe that it is false; you tend to look the other way as it was not a factor. Then when it is needed and is actually for real; you can't tell that it is real. This has been ongoing since we changed to the new system. This needs to be immediately corrected.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: D10 Controller voiced concern regarding the continuous; and sometimes false; Conflict/Low Altitude Alerts that are occurring with the new STARS system.

Narrative: An E135 was on a vector toward the ILS approach for Runway 36L. He was descending from about 3;500 FT to 3;000 FT approximately 5 south of GKY within the Bravo. He went into Conflict Alert with a VFR at approximately 2;000 FT. I watched him climb to about 2;200 FT and he was climbing slowly as many do since they are below the Bravo. The E135 was in a normal descent already slowing his descent to level at 3;000 FT. The aircraft were not climbing or descending at any rate which should have caused the Conflict Alert to go off and were about 5 miles apart still. Since the VFR was not a factor; not climbing at a high rate or anything like that and they were still altitude wise 1;200-1;400 FT apart; traffic was not issued; just another false alert as has been the case with this new system. I issued instructions to a couple other aircraft and when I looked back at the E135 the VFR traffic had now climbed to 2;700 FT and they were about 1 mile apart. I issued traffic at 10 o'clock and the E135 said he was responding to an RA. The Conflict Alert and Low Altitude Alert were going off much more since we changed to the STARS system. Yesterday approximately 60% of the arrivals at DAL on a north flow during one session went into Low Altitude Alert. So much that I just stopped issuing them to the Tower. I talked to our National TAMR (STARS Representative) and explained what happened with the E135 and he said 'I know we are getting a lot of those'. This is a problem as when you get so many false CAs or LAs. After you have so many or observe that it is false; you tend to look the other way as it was not a factor. Then when it is needed and is actually for real; you can't tell that it is real. This has been ongoing since we changed to the new system. This needs to be immediately corrected.

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.