 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
ZOA ARTCC controllers reported a loss of separation due to another center not providing required separation prior to handoff.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1601960 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201812 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZOA.ARTCC |
| State Reference | CA |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | B737-800 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Cruise |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | A320 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Climb |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Enroute Instructor |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Experience | Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 13 |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Enroute Trainee |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Developmental |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
I was training a developmental. Handoff from ZLA on aircraft Z northwest bound and aircraft Y northwest bound converging with aircraft Z climbing out of FL340 to FL360. Handoff from ZLC on aircraft X at FL360 westbound landing sfo. Developmental called ZLC and issued control instruction to descend aircraft X to FL350 for traffic. ZLC controller said 'sure but why don't you just take radar and descend him yourself; that's why you have control in the LOA.' or something to that effect. I explained a little of what should be obvious to another controller.aircraft checked on frequency 10 miles inside our airspace level at FL360. R-side descended the aircraft and then asked if they were issued a descent by ZLC and they said no. Lateral separation appeared to be less than one tenth of a mile when the aircraft crossed. Having control for descent in the LOA does not mean we don't need to ensure separation before taking the handoff. In my opinion accepting 2 handoffs in conflict; especially that close; is negligence/dereliction of duty. ZLC should not question control instructions or play games like that when safety is a priority; which it always is.ethics and professional standards training for anyone who does not believe safety is the first priority.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ZOA ARTCC Controllers reported a loss of separation due to another Center not providing required separation prior to handoff.
Narrative: I was training a developmental. Handoff from ZLA on Aircraft Z northwest bound and Aircraft Y northwest bound converging with Aircraft Z climbing out of FL340 to FL360. Handoff from ZLC on Aircraft X at FL360 westbound landing SFO. Developmental called ZLC and issued control instruction to descend Aircraft X to FL350 for traffic. ZLC controller said 'Sure but why don't you just take radar and descend him yourself; that's why you have control in the LOA.' or something to that effect. I explained a little of what should be obvious to another controller.Aircraft checked on frequency 10 miles inside our airspace level at FL360. R-side descended the aircraft and then asked if they were issued a descent by ZLC and they said no. Lateral separation appeared to be less than one tenth of a mile when the aircraft crossed. Having control for descent in the LOA does not mean we don't need to ensure separation before taking the handoff. In my opinion accepting 2 handoffs in conflict; especially that close; is negligence/dereliction of duty. ZLC should not question control instructions or play games like that when safety is a priority; which it always is.Ethics and professional standards training for anyone who does not believe safety is the first priority.
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.