37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 236853 |
Time | |
Date | 199303 |
Day | Mon |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | atc facility : zny |
State Reference | NY |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 24000 msl bound upper : 24000 |
Environment | |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | artcc : zny tower : anc |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
Navigation In Use | Other Other |
Flight Phase | descent other |
Route In Use | arrival other |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | government : faa |
Function | controller : radar |
Qualification | controller : radar |
Experience | controller radar : 3 |
ASRS Report | 236853 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
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 |
Narrative:
Preferred arrival route printed on all alb arrs should only print on nonstandard routings. This nearly caused an operational error on mar/xx/93. On mar/xx/93 the radar controller at the danbury sector B20 made a save, turning 2 airplanes apart which had veered together at the same altitude. These aircraft, a bos arrival and an alb arrival, had been delivered at FL240 as per LOA, on parallel rtes. Unfortunately, the alb arrival had a slight difference in his route than what was automatically coordinated by the preferred arrival route automation. This difference was not noticed by the 2 veteran controllers working at R56. Why didn't the controllers working R56 pick this up? Because every alb arrival has the preferred arrival route printed on the route in red, whether or not the aircraft is on the preferred route or not. ZNY-510 was asked to consult with us on this matter, and looked up a pdn from oct/92 which illustrated this same problem. This pdn listed the complaint about the redundant preferred arrival rtes as not necessary and distracting. Obviously, this situation has proved to be more than a distraction -- this condition is a safety hazard and has the potential to cause operrors. ZNY-510 looked up this pdn in his file of active automation projects, and indicates that the technical center had acknowledged this as a problem which had been reported by several facilities. However, this problem has not been dealt with and is on hold for some reason. The technical center project to correct the processing of these preferred arrival rtes needs to be moved out of hold status and expedited before a problem is caused that isn't saved. These preferred arrival rtes have the potential to do a great service to the operation, by assuring that descending aircraft are on preferential routings as soon as possible. In their current form, however, they are a distraction with the potential to cause operrors, and if corrections are not forthcoming, then consideration should be given to disabling all the preferred arrival rtes used in ZNY.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CTLR CLAIMS THAT THE PREFERRED ARR RTE (PAR) IS PRINTED ON ALL FLT STRIPS WHETHER THERE IS A CHANGE IN FILED ROUTING OR NOT.
Narrative: PREFERRED ARR RTE PRINTED ON ALL ALB ARRS SHOULD ONLY PRINT ON NONSTANDARD ROUTINGS. THIS NEARLY CAUSED AN OPERROR ON MAR/XX/93. ON MAR/XX/93 THE RADAR CTLR AT THE DANBURY SECTOR B20 MADE A SAVE, TURNING 2 AIRPLANES APART WHICH HAD VEERED TOGETHER AT THE SAME ALT. THESE ACFT, A BOS ARR AND AN ALB ARR, HAD BEEN DELIVERED AT FL240 AS PER LOA, ON PARALLEL RTES. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ALB ARR HAD A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN HIS RTE THAN WHAT WAS AUTOMATICALLY COORDINATED BY THE PREFERRED ARR RTE AUTOMATION. THIS DIFFERENCE WAS NOT NOTICED BY THE 2 VETERAN CTLRS WORKING AT R56. WHY DIDN'T THE CTLRS WORKING R56 PICK THIS UP? BECAUSE EVERY ALB ARR HAS THE PREFERRED ARR RTE PRINTED ON THE RTE IN RED, WHETHER OR NOT THE ACFT IS ON THE PREFERRED RTE OR NOT. ZNY-510 WAS ASKED TO CONSULT WITH US ON THIS MATTER, AND LOOKED UP A PDN FROM OCT/92 WHICH ILLUSTRATED THIS SAME PROB. THIS PDN LISTED THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THE REDUNDANT PREFERRED ARR RTES AS NOT NECESSARY AND DISTRACTING. OBVIOUSLY, THIS SIT HAS PROVED TO BE MORE THAN A DISTR -- THIS CONDITION IS A SAFETY HAZARD AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE OPERRORS. ZNY-510 LOOKED UP THIS PDN IN HIS FILE OF ACTIVE AUTOMATION PROJECTS, AND INDICATES THAT THE TECHNICAL CTR HAD ACKNOWLEDGED THIS AS A PROB WHICH HAD BEEN RPTED BY SEVERAL FACILITIES. HOWEVER, THIS PROB HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH AND IS ON HOLD FOR SOME REASON. THE TECHNICAL CTR PROJECT TO CORRECT THE PROCESSING OF THESE PREFERRED ARR RTES NEEDS TO BE MOVED OUT OF HOLD STATUS AND EXPEDITED BEFORE A PROB IS CAUSED THAT ISN'T SAVED. THESE PREFERRED ARR RTES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DO A GREAT SVC TO THE OP, BY ASSURING THAT DSNDING ACFT ARE ON PREFERENTIAL ROUTINGS ASAP. IN THEIR CURRENT FORM, HOWEVER, THEY ARE A DISTR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE OPERRORS, AND IF CORRECTIONS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING, THEN CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO DISABLING ALL THE PREFERRED ARR RTES USED IN ZNY.
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.