37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 135461 |
Time | |
Date | 199002 |
Day | Thu |
Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | atc facility : luk |
State Reference | OH |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 7300 msl bound upper : 9000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | IMC |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : cvg |
Operator | common carrier : air taxi |
Make Model Name | Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
Flight Phase | descent : approach descent other |
Route In Use | enroute : on vectors |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air taxi |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : cfi pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 140 flight time total : 5380 flight time type : 140 |
ASRS Report | 135461 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air taxi |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : required legal separation other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other controllera other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Operational Error |
Narrative:
The problem arose while being vectored to the final approach course for ILS 20L luk. After initial contact with cvg approach control, while on the queen ii arrival toluk, I was assigned 9000' and heading of 090 degrees. Approximately 3 mins later I was assigned 7000' and heading 075 degrees. During the descent from 9000 to 7000' (approximately 7300') the controller announced that he had assigned my flight 8000'. He further declared conflicting traffic at 7000' and assigned heading 090 degrees once again. I climbed to 8000' immediately and flew heading of 090 degrees. Next contact from controller told me to go back to 7000'. When copilot reminded him (controller) of conflicting traffic at 7000', he then told me to descend and maintain 5000'. I feel the contributing factors were: trnee handling traffic west/O adequate supervision, or very low time controller with too high workload; high traffic vol; and IMC WX conditions. It is my opinion that the controller in question was a trnee due to the following factors: nervous, anxious tone of voice; and apparent state of confusion/indecision. Also, approximately 4 mins later, this controller cleared us for the ILS approach (20L luk) while only 2 KTS from the compass locator at an altitude of 2100' MSL, above the initial approach altitude (2900'msl), and did not turn or clear us to intercept the approach course until we had flown through the localizer. He then attempted to 'take us out again' for the approach. By this time we had descended below the clouds deck, obtained visibility contact of the runway, requested approval of heading 240 degrees (suitable for localizer intercept), got that approval and executed a safe approach and landing.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AIR TAXI CREW CLEARED TO DESCENT THEN TOLD DIFFERENT ALT HAD BEEN ASSIGNED AND CONFLICTING TRAFFIC AT PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED ALT.
Narrative: THE PROB AROSE WHILE BEING VECTORED TO THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR ILS 20L LUK. AFTER INITIAL CONTACT WITH CVG APCH CTL, WHILE ON THE QUEEN II ARR TOLUK, I WAS ASSIGNED 9000' AND HDG OF 090 DEGS. APPROX 3 MINS LATER I WAS ASSIGNED 7000' AND HDG 075 DEGS. DURING THE DSCNT FROM 9000 TO 7000' (APPROX 7300') THE CTLR ANNOUNCED THAT HE HAD ASSIGNED MY FLT 8000'. HE FURTHER DECLARED CONFLICTING TFC AT 7000' AND ASSIGNED HDG 090 DEGS ONCE AGAIN. I CLBED TO 8000' IMMEDIATELY AND FLEW HDG OF 090 DEGS. NEXT CONTACT FROM CTLR TOLD ME TO GO BACK TO 7000'. WHEN COPLT REMINDED HIM (CTLR) OF CONFLICTING TFC AT 7000', HE THEN TOLD ME TO DSND AND MAINTAIN 5000'. I FEEL THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE: TRNEE HANDLING TFC W/O ADEQUATE SUPERVISION, OR VERY LOW TIME CTLR WITH TOO HIGH WORKLOAD; HIGH TFC VOL; AND IMC WX CONDITIONS. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE CTLR IN QUESTION WAS A TRNEE DUE TO THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: NERVOUS, ANXIOUS TONE OF VOICE; AND APPARENT STATE OF CONFUSION/INDECISION. ALSO, APPROX 4 MINS LATER, THIS CTLR CLRED US FOR THE ILS APCH (20L LUK) WHILE ONLY 2 KTS FROM THE COMPASS LOCATOR AT AN ALT OF 2100' MSL, ABOVE THE INITIAL APCH ALT (2900'MSL), AND DID NOT TURN OR CLR US TO INTERCEPT THE APCH COURSE UNTIL WE HAD FLOWN THROUGH THE LOC. HE THEN ATTEMPTED TO 'TAKE US OUT AGAIN' FOR THE APCH. BY THIS TIME WE HAD DSNDED BELOW THE CLOUDS DECK, OBTAINED VIS CONTACT OF THE RWY, REQUESTED APPROVAL OF HDG 240 DEGS (SUITABLE FOR LOC INTERCEPT), GOT THAT APPROVAL AND EXECUTED A SAFE APCH AND LNDG.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.