 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Controller complains about a proposed noise abatement procedure test involving opposite direction traffic.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 210334 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199205 |
| Day | Tue |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : den |
| State Reference | CO |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : den artcc : zdc |
| Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : approach |
| Qualification | controller : radar |
| Experience | controller radar : 8 |
| ASRS Report | 210334 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : unable |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
| Situations | |
| ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
| Airport | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
On may/fri/92 I received a copy of a proposed change in our noise abatement procedures for runways 18/36. I answered this proposal on may/tue/92 being concerned about the safety aspect of commercial acrs having to fly 4 to 5 mi in the face of opposite direction landing traffic as soon as they lift off of runways 35L or 35R. In my answer, I cited a similar request which I answered on feb/wed/92. Our facility advisory board and numerous supervisors also contested this procedure. I have never received any feedback from my letter to the air traffic manager. On may/mon/92 I was informed that this testing procedure will commence june/mon/92 despite our concerns and without completing negotiations with the air traffic controllers union (natca). This procedure immensely compromises the safety of the flying public and should not be done. As the union facility representative, I have instructed all bargaining unit controllers to operate under article 65 of our contract, which places the full responsibility of any occurrence directly on the supervisor in charge. I have also filed an unsatisfactory condition report and have written the air traffic manager again on may/tue/92, expressing this same concern.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CTLR COMPLAINS ABOUT A PROPOSED NOISE ABATEMENT PROC TEST INVOLVING OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC.
Narrative: ON MAY/FRI/92 I RECEIVED A COPY OF A PROPOSED CHANGE IN OUR NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS FOR RWYS 18/36. I ANSWERED THIS PROPOSAL ON MAY/TUE/92 BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY ASPECT OF COMMERCIAL ACRS HAVING TO FLY 4 TO 5 MI IN THE FACE OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION LNDG TFC AS SOON AS THEY LIFT OFF OF RWYS 35L OR 35R. IN MY ANSWER, I CITED A SIMILAR REQUEST WHICH I ANSWERED ON FEB/WED/92. OUR FAC ADVISORY BOARD AND NUMEROUS SUPVRS ALSO CONTESTED THIS PROC. I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM MY LETTER TO THE AIR TFC MGR. ON MAY/MON/92 I WAS INFORMED THAT THIS TESTING PROC WILL COMMENCE JUNE/MON/92 DESPITE OUR CONCERNS AND WITHOUT COMPLETING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE AIR TFC CTLRS UNION (NATCA). THIS PROC IMMENSELY COMPROMISES THE SAFETY OF THE FLYING PUBLIC AND SHOULD NOT BE DONE. AS THE UNION FAC REPRESENTATIVE, I HAVE INSTRUCTED ALL BARGAINING UNIT CTLRS TO OPERATE UNDER ARTICLE 65 OF OUR CONTRACT, WHICH PLACES THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY OCCURRENCE DIRECTLY ON THE SUPVR IN CHARGE. I HAVE ALSO FILED AN UNSATISFACTORY CONDITION RPT AND HAVE WRITTEN THE AIR TFC MGR AGAIN ON MAY/TUE/92, EXPRESSING THIS SAME CONCERN.
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.