Sct controller reports of a loss of separation between two aircraft on final due to the other arriva...

Attributes
ACN	1186667
Time
Date	201406
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	SCT.TRACON
State Reference	CA
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Descent
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Large Transport
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 20
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Narrative:

I was given aircraft X descending on ILS 25L. Due to volume I slowed the aircraft. I advised the stadium atcs who was given aircraft Y on a parallel routing and slightly behind aircraft X; on ILS 24R; that I was slowing my aircraft (aircraft X); per SOP. Evidently the STAR atcs did not get visual separation in time; or block altitude in sufficient time to maintain separation with aircraft X. This is a common procedure at la. These aircraft were given to downey & stadium by the same previous atcs (feeder). This atcs is well aware of the volume and can see if the sectors are overloaded to the point that they are being slowed while still in feeders airspace (this event). Although the feeder controller delivered the aircraft with at least minimum separation; it would have been appropriate in my opinion for the feeder atcs to have obtained visual separation with these two aircraft before transferring communication; instead of transferring that responsibility to stadium; who undoubtedly was busy themselves with aircraft approaching minimum separation as they approached the runway; and thus preventing this loss of separation. Unfortunately; work ethic can not be trained.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SCT Controller reports of a loss of separation between two aircraft on final due to the other arrival sector not attaining visual separation or saving 1;000 feet as required.

Narrative: I was given Aircraft X descending on ILS 25L. Due to volume I slowed the aircraft. I advised the Stadium ATCS who was given Aircraft Y on a parallel routing and slightly behind Aircraft X; on ILS 24R; that I was slowing my aircraft (Aircraft X); per SOP. Evidently the STAR ATCS did not get visual separation in time; or block altitude in sufficient time to maintain separation with Aircraft X. This is a common procedure at LA. These aircraft were given to Downey & Stadium by the same previous ATCS (Feeder). This ATCS is well aware of the volume and can see if the sectors are overloaded to the point that they are being slowed while still in Feeders airspace (this event). Although the Feeder Controller delivered the aircraft with at least minimum separation; it would have been appropriate in my opinion for the Feeder ATCS to have obtained visual separation with these two aircraft before transferring communication; instead of transferring that responsibility to Stadium; who undoubtedly was busy themselves with aircraft approaching minimum separation as they approached the runway; and thus preventing this loss of separation. Unfortunately; work ethic can not be trained.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

Sct controller reports of a loss of separation between two aircraft on final due to the other arrival sector not attaining visual separation or saving 1;000 feet as required.