 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
ATC had aircraft on parallel runway ILS approaches with monitor controllers. The controller turned the second aircraft on to final late causing it to overshoot across the final approach course. Although greater than minimum vertical separation existed at all times; if both aircraft are cleared for approach the FAA interprets this as a loss of separation.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1290762 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201507 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | D01.TRACON |
| State Reference | CO |
| Environment | |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Large Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
| 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) 4 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Track / Heading All Types |
Narrative:
Simultaneous ILS monitored approaches to 35R and 35L. My trainee was trying to fill a hole with downwind traffic. Aircraft X was cleared for the ILS approach and on tower frequency but still at 10;000 feet and complying with the charted altitudes on the ILS. The trainee turned aircraft Y late and ended up being in the back of the hole; aircraft X was already slowed but we ended up having 2.7 miles laterally between the two aircraft. At no time was vertical separation ever lost. It was clear that it wasn't going to work so I instructed the monitor controller to cancel aircraft X's approach and get him off the final. I believe we fixed the situation before it became a 'loss' as we cancelled aircraft X clearance and turned him out before vertical separation was lost. Management at this facility disagreed. When I pushed further; management got a 'ruling' from the region. The region determined it was still a loss. I still disagree as we are the controllers and we have the ability to 'control' the situation. Furthermore; if this is a loss; then the dual RNAV stars feeding the downwind to den at D01 should all be considered losses as well; as every single aircraft is cleared to descend via to the same point in space; at the same altitude. And if this is so; we should decommission all the arrivals and cease and desist using them immediately.we should have people who actually work airplanes making policy and rulings at the regional level. These people are so disconnected from what is really happening in the field. Furthermore if this is an actual correct interpretation of the rule; then it should be considered for the chopping block. It is antiquated and unrealistic at high density airports; when trying to run minimum separation. We are the controllers; and have been taught 1000 feet or 3 miles since day one of training. Why are we not allowed to exercise our skills as 'controllers' in every situation? Recommended change is to change this rule; or teach our region the correct way to apply this rule.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ATC had aircraft on parallel Runway ILS approaches with monitor controllers. The Controller turned the second aircraft on to final late causing it to overshoot across the final approach course. Although greater than minimum vertical separation existed at all times; if both aircraft are cleared for approach the FAA interprets this as a loss of separation.
Narrative: Simultaneous ILS monitored approaches to 35R and 35L. My trainee was trying to fill a hole with downwind traffic. Aircraft X was cleared for the ILS approach and on tower frequency but still at 10;000 feet and complying with the charted altitudes on the ILS. The trainee turned Aircraft Y late and ended up being in the back of the hole; Aircraft X was already slowed but we ended up having 2.7 miles laterally between the two aircraft. At no time was vertical separation EVER lost. It was clear that it wasn't going to work so I instructed the monitor controller to cancel Aircraft X's approach and get him off the final. I believe we fixed the situation before it became a 'loss' as we cancelled Aircraft X clearance and turned him out before vertical separation was lost. Management at this facility disagreed. When I pushed further; management got a 'ruling' from the region. The region determined it was still a loss. I still disagree as we are the controllers and we have the ability to 'control' the situation. Furthermore; if this is a loss; then the Dual RNAV STARS feeding the downwind to DEN at D01 should all be considered losses as well; as every single aircraft is cleared to descend via to the same point in space; at the same altitude. And if this is so; we should decommission all the arrivals and cease and desist using them immediately.We should have people who actually work airplanes making policy and rulings at the regional level. These people are so disconnected from what is really happening in the field. Furthermore if this is an actual correct interpretation of the rule; then it should be considered for the chopping block. It is antiquated and unrealistic at high density airports; when trying to run minimum separation. We are the controllers; and have been taught 1000 feet or 3 miles since day one of training. Why are we not allowed to exercise our skills as 'controllers' in every situation? Recommended change is to change this rule; or teach our region the correct way to apply this rule.
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.