 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A tower local controller observed the other local controller allow an aircraft to land with less than the required minimum separation from the preceding aircraft.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1350265 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201604 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | DFW.Tower |
| State Reference | TX |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | Marginal |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | A319 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Route In Use | Other Instrument Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Medium Transport |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Route In Use | Other Instrument Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Local |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Experience | Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 16.0 |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Local |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Experience | Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 32.0 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Weather MVFR; low layer reported at 900 feet; I was getting arrivals in sight at approximately a 2 mile final. Visibility was excellent below the clouds. Aircraft Y was on final; approximately 10 miles out when I noticed that they were more than 100 knots faster than aircraft X; but still separated by more than 5 miles (estimated). The final monitor controller initiated coordination with me asking if we (the tower) had the two aircraft in sight and could provide visual separation. I replied that we could not see the second aircraft. Final monitor took no further action.the local controller and I were discussing the situation when another controller plugged in to local to relieve the local controller. Local controller commented something to the effect 'oh well; I'll just file an atsap. It is well known that the controller intends to retire [soon]. Prior to working local control; the controller had been working ground control and was engaged in a conversation with the flight data controller and front line manager (flm). After the controller was relieved and went downstairs; I reported the event to the flm who; I believe; was monitoring the position via wireless headset although he was busy on the computer with something and had another controller at his desk so he may not have been fully aware of what was going on. Also; since he is monitoring the local position and not the he would not have heard the coordination between the final monitor and me. In hindsight I wish that I had directly instructed the local controller to break out aircraft Y rather than attempt to influence his actions by asking him if he had it. Sure; TRACON could have done a better job; but we had a chance to ensure safety too but we chose to let it go.the local controller should be referred to professional standards and if they are not able to resolve the attitude issue; this controller should be removed from ATC duties until he retires.training should be developed at this facility that helps to put the emphasis back on safety and less on efficiency.professional standards training for the whole facility to re-instill a professional attitude that reflects the importance of our job.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A Tower Local Controller observed the other Local Controller allow an aircraft to land with less than the required minimum separation from the preceding aircraft.
Narrative: Weather MVFR; low layer reported at 900 feet; I was getting arrivals in sight at approximately a 2 mile final. Visibility was excellent below the clouds. Aircraft Y was on final; approximately 10 miles out when I noticed that they were more than 100 knots faster than Aircraft X; but still separated by more than 5 miles (estimated). The Final Monitor Controller initiated coordination with me asking if we (the tower) had the two aircraft in sight and could provide visual separation. I replied that we could not see the second aircraft. Final Monitor took no further action.The Local Controller and I were discussing the situation when another controller plugged in to Local to relieve the Local Controller. Local controller commented something to the effect 'oh well; I'll just file an ATSAP. It is well known that the controller intends to retire [soon]. Prior to working Local Control; the controller had been working Ground Control and was engaged in a conversation with the Flight Data controller and Front Line Manager (FLM). After the controller was relieved and went downstairs; I reported the event to the FLM who; I believe; was monitoring the position via wireless headset although he was busy on the computer with something and had another controller at his desk so he may not have been fully aware of what was going on. Also; since he is monitoring the Local position and not the he would not have heard the coordination between the final monitor and me. In hindsight I wish that I had directly instructed the Local Controller to break out Aircraft Y rather than attempt to influence his actions by asking him if he had it. Sure; TRACON could have done a better job; but we had a chance to ensure safety too but we chose to let it go.The Local Controller should be referred to Professional Standards and if they are not able to resolve the attitude issue; this controller should be removed from ATC duties until he retires.Training should be developed at this facility that helps to put the emphasis back on safety and less on efficiency.Professional Standards training for the whole facility to re-instill a professional attitude that reflects the importance of our job.
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.