Narrative:

Flight originated in clt and filed to pie. En route clearance to pie was to be over gainesville VORTAC to follow the dades eight arrival. The aircraft was on an approximately 180 degree heading. Due to thunderstorm WX over the arrival route we were advised to turn left to a heading of 230 degree. The controller then corrected and told us to turn right to 230 degree. Shortly thereafter we were given a heading of 260 degree to intercept J43 inbound to pie. I believe we were advised that we would be in trail of another aircraft. The HSI indicator was set to intercept a 150 degree inbound course on the 330 degree radial of pie. The aircraft was approximately 105 NM from the station when needle movement occurred which was verified by #1 RMI needle at slightly less of 160 degree inbound course showing that the aircraft was approaching the airway. I began a left turn to intercept the airway at this time since I would have to turn 110 degree to be north the jet route heading of 150 degree. In the turn all indicators appeared to verify a smooth intercept. Approximately turning through a 210 degree heading the controller called to advise us that we were to be on a 260 degree heading. I immediately began a right turn back to 260 degree. My next transmission was a question to verify what I understood as a clearance to intercept J43 inbound. The controller told us to maintain a heading of 260 degree and seemed busy with a situation of which we obviously were a part. We then thought that we had another course change to 190 degree while we were still turning to 260 degree. We verified this course change and the controller told us it was for another aircraft. I believe then we got a course change to 270 degree. The turn to 190 degree which we thought initially was for us never did occur because we were still turning to 260 degree. At this point I advised the controller I would remain on my 270 degree heading until he advised me to turn. We did hear the controller tell another aircraft to stop at FL390. After we passed J43 and beyond we were given a heading of south then 150 degree to intercept J43. We advised the controller that we would not intercept J43 on that heading and were then given a heading of 140 degree. It was at this time that the controller advised us to call quality assurance with jacksonville center for pilot course deviation. When I called I was advised that all the data was not yet in but a report would be called in to flight standards in orlando. The next day in june 1989 I called and I was advised that the problem appeared that I began my turn to intercept too early and I was 12 NM from centerline of J43 and that we came within the 5 mi restriction of separation. To be exact we were 4.8 KM from another aircraft FL390 for 12 seconds. When I talked to flight standards in orlando I was told that someone had reported that I was 33 KM off course which when on a radar vector seemed erroneous. Both people quality assurance and flight standards did say 'all the data was still not in.' in my opinion had we been that close to another aircraft descending through our altitude a vector or heading should have been given us to maintain until well clear of the other aircraft. In most cases this is done or the other aircraft should only have been cleared to FL390 to maintain vertical separation. After horizontal separation requirements were met then the other aircraft could have been cleared to descend. People contacted: quality assurance, jacksonville center, flight standards, orlando.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CTLR INTERVENTION TO STOP ACFT X FROM MAKING RADIAL INTERCEPT TOO SOON. STOPPED DESCENT OF ACFT Y TO PROVIDE 2000' IN VERTICAL SEPARATION. A POTENTIAL FOR LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION ONLY. DID NOT OCCUR.

Narrative: FLT ORIGINATED IN CLT AND FILED TO PIE. ENRTE CLRNC TO PIE WAS TO BE OVER GAINESVILLE VORTAC TO FOLLOW THE DADES EIGHT ARR. THE ACFT WAS ON AN APPROX 180 DEG HDG. DUE TO TSTM WX OVER THE ARR ROUTE WE WERE ADVISED TO TURN LEFT TO A HDG OF 230 DEG. THE CTLR THEN CORRECTED AND TOLD US TO TURN RIGHT TO 230 DEG. SHORTLY THEREAFTER WE WERE GIVEN A HDG OF 260 DEG TO INTERCEPT J43 INBND TO PIE. I BELIEVE WE WERE ADVISED THAT WE WOULD BE IN TRAIL OF ANOTHER ACFT. THE HSI INDICATOR WAS SET TO INTERCEPT A 150 DEG INBND COURSE ON THE 330 DEG RADIAL OF PIE. THE ACFT WAS APPROX 105 NM FROM THE STATION WHEN NEEDLE MOVEMENT OCCURRED WHICH WAS VERIFIED BY #1 RMI NEEDLE AT SLIGHTLY LESS OF 160 DEG INBND COURSE SHOWING THAT THE ACFT WAS APCHING THE AIRWAY. I BEGAN A LEFT TURN TO INTERCEPT THE AIRWAY AT THIS TIME SINCE I WOULD HAVE TO TURN 110 DEG TO BE N THE JET ROUTE HDG OF 150 DEG. IN THE TURN ALL INDICATORS APPEARED TO VERIFY A SMOOTH INTERCEPT. APPROX TURNING THROUGH A 210 DEG HDG THE CTLR CALLED TO ADVISE US THAT WE WERE TO BE ON A 260 DEG HDG. I IMMEDIATELY BEGAN A RIGHT TURN BACK TO 260 DEG. MY NEXT XMISSION WAS A QUESTION TO VERIFY WHAT I UNDERSTOOD AS A CLRNC TO INTERCEPT J43 INBND. THE CTLR TOLD US TO MAINTAIN A HDG OF 260 DEG AND SEEMED BUSY WITH A SITUATION OF WHICH WE OBVIOUSLY WERE A PART. WE THEN THOUGHT THAT WE HAD ANOTHER COURSE CHANGE TO 190 DEG WHILE WE WERE STILL TURNING TO 260 DEG. WE VERIFIED THIS COURSE CHANGE AND THE CTLR TOLD US IT WAS FOR ANOTHER ACFT. I BELIEVE THEN WE GOT A COURSE CHANGE TO 270 DEG. THE TURN TO 190 DEG WHICH WE THOUGHT INITIALLY WAS FOR US NEVER DID OCCUR BECAUSE WE WERE STILL TURNING TO 260 DEG. AT THIS POINT I ADVISED THE CTLR I WOULD REMAIN ON MY 270 DEG HDG UNTIL HE ADVISED ME TO TURN. WE DID HEAR THE CTLR TELL ANOTHER ACFT TO STOP AT FL390. AFTER WE PASSED J43 AND BEYOND WE WERE GIVEN A HDG OF SOUTH THEN 150 DEG TO INTERCEPT J43. WE ADVISED THE CTLR THAT WE WOULD NOT INTERCEPT J43 ON THAT HDG AND WERE THEN GIVEN A HDG OF 140 DEG. IT WAS AT THIS TIME THAT THE CTLR ADVISED US TO CALL QUALITY ASSURANCE WITH JACKSONVILLE CENTER FOR PLT COURSE DEVIATION. WHEN I CALLED I WAS ADVISED THAT ALL THE DATA WAS NOT YET IN BUT A REPORT WOULD BE CALLED IN TO FLT STANDARDS IN ORLANDO. THE NEXT DAY IN JUNE 1989 I CALLED AND I WAS ADVISED THAT THE PROBLEM APPEARED THAT I BEGAN MY TURN TO INTERCEPT TOO EARLY AND I WAS 12 NM FROM CENTERLINE OF J43 AND THAT WE CAME WITHIN THE 5 MI RESTRICTION OF SEPARATION. TO BE EXACT WE WERE 4.8 KM FROM ANOTHER ACFT FL390 FOR 12 SECONDS. WHEN I TALKED TO FLT STANDARDS IN ORLANDO I WAS TOLD THAT SOMEONE HAD REPORTED THAT I WAS 33 KM OFF COURSE WHICH WHEN ON A RADAR VECTOR SEEMED ERRONEOUS. BOTH PEOPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE AND FLT STANDARDS DID SAY 'ALL THE DATA WAS STILL NOT IN.' IN MY OPINION HAD WE BEEN THAT CLOSE TO ANOTHER ACFT DESCENDING THROUGH OUR ALT A VECTOR OR HDG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN US TO MAINTAIN UNTIL WELL CLEAR OF THE OTHER ACFT. IN MOST CASES THIS IS DONE OR THE OTHER ACFT SHOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN CLRED TO FL390 TO MAINTAIN VERTICAL SEPARATION. AFTER HORIZONTAL SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS WERE MET THEN THE OTHER ACFT COULD HAVE BEEN CLRED TO DSND. PEOPLE CONTACTED: QUALITY ASSURANCE, JACKSONVILLE CENTER, FLT STANDARDS, ORLANDO.

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.