Air carrier X non adherence to ATC clearance turn to wrong heading received TCASII TA had less than standard separation from air carrier Y. Evasive action taken.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	225471
Time
Date	199211
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : bwi
State Reference	MD
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3000 msl bound upper : 3000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : bwi tower : cle
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Transport, High Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 230 flight time total : 8276 flight time type : 4573
ASRS Report	225471
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance non adherence : required legal separation other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : took evasive action
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 0 vertical : 600
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Air carrier X departed runway 33R, given 310 degrees by tower. Shortly after having checked in with departure and getting 12000 ft, we were then given a turn to 210 degrees at about 2000 ft MSL. After rolling out on 210 degrees, noticed several potential upcoming conflicts on TCASII. Alerted first officer. Just then, departure, in a concerned voice, asked our heading. First officer said 210 degrees, as I did a maximum performance (60 degree bank) climbing right turn to avoid air carrier Y, departing runway 28. Controller then assigned 330 degrees and asked why we were not on a 310 degree heading. We said because she had assigned 210 degrees! She said she did not! Going to pull tapes. Will know more later. First officer and myself both heard air carrier X and heading. Both independently set heading bugs. Both thought heading unusual. Both heard him read back air carrier X and heading. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter stated he contacted the FAA facility twice and was told the tapes had not been played back. Conflict was with an medium large transport. Reporter stated he and the first officer discussed the unusual heading but did not question the controller. Reporter said they might have taken another aircraft clearance. Reporter took evasive action without receiving a TCASII RA.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC TURN TO WRONG HDG RECEIVED TCASII TA HAD LTSS FROM ACR Y. EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN.

Narrative: ACR X DEPARTED RWY 33R, GIVEN 310 DEGS BY TWR. SHORTLY AFTER HAVING CHKED IN WITH DEP AND GETTING 12000 FT, WE WERE THEN GIVEN A TURN TO 210 DEGS AT ABOUT 2000 FT MSL. AFTER ROLLING OUT ON 210 DEGS, NOTICED SEVERAL POTENTIAL UPCOMING CONFLICTS ON TCASII. ALERTED FO. JUST THEN, DEP, IN A CONCERNED VOICE, ASKED OUR HDG. FO SAID 210 DEGS, AS I DID A MAX PERFORMANCE (60 DEG BANK) CLBING R TURN TO AVOID ACR Y, DEPARTING RWY 28. CTLR THEN ASSIGNED 330 DEGS AND ASKED WHY WE WERE NOT ON A 310 DEG HDG. WE SAID BECAUSE SHE HAD ASSIGNED 210 DEGS! SHE SAID SHE DID NOT! GOING TO PULL TAPES. WILL KNOW MORE LATER. FO AND MYSELF BOTH HEARD ACR X AND HDG. BOTH INDEPENDENTLY SET HDG BUGS. BOTH THOUGHT HDG UNUSUAL. BOTH HEARD HIM READ BACK ACR X AND HDG. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATED HE CONTACTED THE FAA FACILITY TWICE AND WAS TOLD THE TAPES HAD NOT BEEN PLAYED BACK. CONFLICT WAS WITH AN MLG. RPTR STATED HE AND THE FO DISCUSSED THE UNUSUAL HDG BUT DID NOT QUESTION THE CTLR. RPTR SAID THEY MIGHT HAVE TAKEN ANOTHER ACFT CLRNC. RPTR TOOK EVASIVE ACTION WITHOUT RECEIVING A TCASII RA.

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.