Narrative:

I was working approach at indianapolis tower. Midnight operations were in effect which allows both the ZID center and approach to let inbound and outbnd aircraft to proceed direct to their first fix. Although aircraft are allowed to proceed direct, this does not relieve either facility from complying with the other parts of the letter of agreement, particularly requiring aircraft to be at specific altitudes. All inbnds will be at 11000' and departures will be climbing to 10000'. If aircraft transit the airspace at lower altitudes they will be at altitudes appropriate for direction of flight. Small transport X departed ind on a 320 degree heading and I cleared him direct to laf, about this time I was working 10 aircraft inbound to ind from all directions, working the position combined means you're working the whole airspace which if split would consist of two arrival position and four departure position requiring you to monitor about twelve frequencys. I climbed small transport X to 6000' which was his requested altitude. At this time I took a handoff on small transport Y coming bvt direct ind. Small transport Y checked in but the last part of the transmission was cut out due to two or three aircraft transmitting at the same time, I acknowledged with 'small transport Y roger' and continued to vector my other inbnds. About three mins later I instructed small transport Y to fly heading 180 degree for vectors to ILS runway 5L final approach course, at this time I also handed off small transport X to ZID. A few mins later I noticed small transport Y descending out of 6800' and instructed her to turn left to a heading of 090, I also instructed small transport X to turn left to a heading of 270 degree. The aircraft passed approximately 3 mi of each other and the conflict alert went off as they started their turns, I must note that our parameters for the conflict alert system are set for 5 mi. If ZID had complied with the letter of agreement, small transport Y aircraft should have been at 7000' which would have been no problem. I full rted the aircraft to find out what altitude she was assigned by the center and she had been issued 6000' which violated the LOA. Neither pilot questioned the abrupt turns which were issued and both aircraft continued to their destination west/O incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZID CENTER FAILED TO COORD INBOUND ALT OF SMT Y. OPDEV.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING APCH AT INDIANAPOLIS TWR. MIDNIGHT OPS WERE IN EFFECT WHICH ALLOWS BOTH THE ZID CTR AND APCH TO LET INBND AND OUTBND ACFT TO PROCEED DIRECT TO THEIR FIRST FIX. ALTHOUGH ACFT ARE ALLOWED TO PROCEED DIRECT, THIS DOES NOT RELIEVE EITHER FAC FROM COMPLYING WITH THE OTHER PARTS OF THE LETTER OF AGREEMENT, PARTICULARLY REQUIRING ACFT TO BE AT SPECIFIC ALTS. ALL INBNDS WILL BE AT 11000' AND DEPS WILL BE CLBING TO 10000'. IF ACFT TRANSIT THE AIRSPACE AT LOWER ALTS THEY WILL BE AT ALTS APPROPRIATE FOR DIRECTION OF FLT. SMT X DEPARTED IND ON A 320 DEG HDG AND I CLRED HIM DIRECT TO LAF, ABOUT THIS TIME I WAS WORKING 10 ACFT INBND TO IND FROM ALL DIRECTIONS, WORKING THE POS COMBINED MEANS YOU'RE WORKING THE WHOLE AIRSPACE WHICH IF SPLIT WOULD CONSIST OF TWO ARR POS AND FOUR DEP POS REQUIRING YOU TO MONITOR ABOUT TWELVE FREQS. I CLBED SMT X TO 6000' WHICH WAS HIS REQUESTED ALT. AT THIS TIME I TOOK A HDOF ON SMT Y COMING BVT DIRECT IND. SMT Y CHKED IN BUT THE LAST PART OF THE XMISSION WAS CUT OUT DUE TO TWO OR THREE ACFT XMITTING AT THE SAME TIME, I ACKNOWLEDGED WITH 'SMT Y ROGER' AND CONTINUED TO VECTOR MY OTHER INBNDS. ABOUT THREE MINS LATER I INSTRUCTED SMT Y TO FLY HDG 180 DEG FOR VECTORS TO ILS RWY 5L FINAL APCH COURSE, AT THIS TIME I ALSO HANDED OFF SMT X TO ZID. A FEW MINS LATER I NOTICED SMT Y DSNDING OUT OF 6800' AND INSTRUCTED HER TO TURN L TO A HDG OF 090, I ALSO INSTRUCTED SMT X TO TURN L TO A HDG OF 270 DEG. THE ACFT PASSED APPROX 3 MI OF EACH OTHER AND THE CONFLICT ALERT WENT OFF AS THEY STARTED THEIR TURNS, I MUST NOTE THAT OUR PARAMETERS FOR THE CONFLICT ALERT SYS ARE SET FOR 5 MI. IF ZID HAD COMPLIED WITH THE LETTER OF AGREEMENT, SMT Y ACFT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT 7000' WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROB. I FULL RTED THE ACFT TO FIND OUT WHAT ALT SHE WAS ASSIGNED BY THE CTR AND SHE HAD BEEN ISSUED 6000' WHICH VIOLATED THE LOA. NEITHER PLT QUESTIONED THE ABRUPT TURNS WHICH WERE ISSUED AND BOTH ACFT CONTINUED TO THEIR DEST W/O INCIDENT.

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.