Non radar approach control use of visual approachs.

Attributes
ACN	245518
Time
Date	199307
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : gjt
State Reference	CO
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : gjt tower : gjt
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : non radar
Experience	controller military : 4 controller non radar : 7
ASRS Report	245518
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	oversight : supervisor
Qualification	controller : non radar
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

Narrative:

Visual approach separation at gjtt is not in accordance with ATC manual 7110.65 paragraph 7-32(C). The commonh consensus is that lateral separation can be aplied between aircraft on visual approachs. This type of separation has led to more than 1 incident because of inaccurate pilot position reports. The supervisor insists this procedure is acceptable, and has stated 'I'm not going to nail you if a pilot is not where he says he is and you resolve the problem, but if a pilot is not where he says he is and something happens, I'll have to nail you for that.' I should not be held responsible in this situation under any circumnstance. If lateral separation between 2 or more aircraft on a visual approach is acceptable and the pilot states his incorrect position, why should I be held responsbile if an incident or midair collision occurs?

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON RADAR APCH CTL USE OF VISUAL APCHS.

Narrative: VISUAL APCH SEPARATION AT GJTT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATC MANUAL 7110.65 PARAGRAPH 7-32(C). THE COMMONH CONSENSUS IS THAT LATERAL SEPARATION CAN BE APLIED BTWN ACFT ON VISUAL APCHS. THIS TYPE OF SEPARATION HAS LED TO MORE THAN 1 INCIDENT BECAUSE OF INACCURATE PLT POS RPTS. THE SUPVR INSISTS THIS PROC IS ACCEPTABLE, AND HAS STATED 'I'M NOT GOING TO NAIL YOU IF A PLT IS NOT WHERE HE SAYS HE IS AND YOU RESOLVE THE PROB, BUT IF A PLT IS NOT WHERE HE SAYS HE IS AND SOMETHING HAPPENS, I'LL HAVE TO NAIL YOU FOR THAT.' I SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IN THIS SIT UNDER ANY CIRCUMNSTANCE. IF LATERAL SEPARATION BTWN 2 OR MORE ACFT ON A VISUAL APCH IS ACCEPTABLE AND THE PLT STATES HIS INCORRECT POS, WHY SHOULD I BE HELD RESPONSBILE IF AN INCIDENT OR MIDAIR COLLISION OCCURS?

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.