 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A medium large transport passed an small transport on final approach 5 mi from runway threshold. Visual separation being applied by the pilots.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 168544 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199101 |
| Day | Sun |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : ama |
| State Reference | TX |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 5000 msl bound upper : 6000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : ama tower : ama |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach descent other |
| Route In Use | approach : straight in approach : visual |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Operator | general aviation : personal |
| Make Model Name | Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Recip Eng |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach descent other |
| Route In Use | approach : visual approach : straight in |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : local |
| Qualification | controller : non radar |
| ASRS Report | 168544 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : approach |
| Qualification | controller : radar |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : insufficient time |
| Consequence | faa : investigated |
| Miss Distance | vertical : 500 |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
Approach controller conducting training failed to properly sequence arrival flow. Medium large transport X rapidly overtook small transport Y on final. Medium large transport X passed 500' overhead small transport Y within 5 mi of airport. Controller claimed visibility sep on the part of both pilots. No way medium large transport X (over the top) can see through the floor and maintain visibility sep. No way can pilot of small transport Y look up and back through top of aircraft to maintain visibility sep. Controller's often times abuse visibility sep and let situations go to point that standard sep cannot be maintained if visibility is not attained. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter stated that the WX was clear with unrestricted visibility. The medium large transport X called first when it was on a two mi final approach. The small transport Y called second also on a two mi final approach and behind the medium large transport. He immediately contacted the approach controller who stated that he had visibility sep between the two aircraft. The reporter could not believe that visibility sep could be applied. He reported the incident to his supervisor. Management did investigate the incident and determined that no system error occurred. The pilot's had each other in sight and did not complain about the other aircraft's position.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A MLG PASSED AN SMT ON FINAL APCH 5 MI FROM RWY THRESHOLD. VISUAL SEPARATION BEING APPLIED BY THE PLTS.
Narrative: APCH CTLR CONDUCTING TRNING FAILED TO PROPERLY SEQUENCE ARR FLOW. MLG X RAPIDLY OVERTOOK SMT Y ON FINAL. MLG X PASSED 500' OVERHEAD SMT Y WITHIN 5 MI OF ARPT. CTLR CLAIMED VIS SEP ON THE PART OF BOTH PLTS. NO WAY MLG X (OVER THE TOP) CAN SEE THROUGH THE FLOOR AND MAINTAIN VIS SEP. NO WAY CAN PLT OF SMT Y LOOK UP AND BACK THROUGH TOP OF ACFT TO MAINTAIN VIS SEP. CTLR'S OFTEN TIMES ABUSE VIS SEP AND LET SITUATIONS GO TO POINT THAT STANDARD SEP CANNOT BE MAINTAINED IF VIS IS NOT ATTAINED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR STATED THAT THE WX WAS CLR WITH UNRESTRICTED VISIBILITY. THE MLG X CALLED FIRST WHEN IT WAS ON A TWO MI FINAL APCH. THE SMT Y CALLED SEC ALSO ON A TWO MI FINAL APCH AND BEHIND THE MLG. HE IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED THE APCH CTLR WHO STATED THAT HE HAD VIS SEP BTWN THE TWO ACFT. THE RPTR COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT VIS SEP COULD BE APPLIED. HE RPTED THE INCIDENT TO HIS SUPVR. MGMNT DID INVESTIGATE THE INCIDENT AND DETERMINED THAT NO SYS ERROR OCCURRED. THE PLT'S HAD EACH OTHER IN SIGHT AND DID NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE OTHER ACFT'S POS.
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.