Narrative:

Air carrier X was passed to mid center and passed FL330, but he was passed at FL290 prior to this. When the previous controller passed FL330 on air carrier X, this conflicted with air carrier Y at FL330. When I signed on, the incident had already occurred. Mid center (merida center) called and requested that air carrier X be descended to FL290. I could not because of opposite direction non-radar traffic at FL310. We tried to coordinate with holding, then I asked if air carrier Y could take FL370. The mid (merida center) controller said he was at FL370. I asked again, and the controller said show air carrier Y at FL370. We coordinated FL370 with ZMA. Mid never climbed the air carrier Y to FL370. This aircraft got too close to air carrier X and another aircraft later with ZHU and ZMA. All events occurred in non-radar conditions. With radar, fdio, and direct pilot-to-controller communication, this deviation would not have occurred. Supplemental information from acn 248387: 2 scheduled acrs were both at FL330 converging at marte intersection. The non-radar controller asked mid center to move one of the aircraft to FL370 and was told that the aircraft would be at FL370. We later found out the aircraft was still at FL330. This put the aircraft in conflict with 2 other acrs. Due to lack of communication we are not in direct ground-to-air communications with the aircraft. If we had communications with the aircraft flying through the gulf of mexico, sits like this could be fixed faster. Supplemental information from acn 248385: traffic in the gulf of mexico has increased by over 15 percent each yr for the last several yrs. The radio coverage in this area is very poor and radar coverage is non-existent for most of the gulf of mexico. Because of the equipment shortages, the workload for oceanic controllers at ZHU is very heavy. Air carrier X sebound conflicted with air carrier Y nebound (less than 15 mins, non-radar oceanic separation).

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR Y SAME ALT ASSIGNED HAD LTSS FROM ACR X ON OCEANIC RTE. SYS ERROR.

Narrative: ACR X WAS PASSED TO MID CTR AND PASSED FL330, BUT HE WAS PASSED AT FL290 PRIOR TO THIS. WHEN THE PREVIOUS CTLR PASSED FL330 ON ACR X, THIS CONFLICTED WITH ACR Y AT FL330. WHEN I SIGNED ON, THE INCIDENT HAD ALREADY OCCURRED. MID CTR (MERIDA CTR) CALLED AND REQUESTED THAT ACR X BE DSNDED TO FL290. I COULD NOT BECAUSE OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION NON-RADAR TFC AT FL310. WE TRIED TO COORDINATE WITH HOLDING, THEN I ASKED IF ACR Y COULD TAKE FL370. THE MID (MERIDA CTR) CTLR SAID HE WAS AT FL370. I ASKED AGAIN, AND THE CTLR SAID SHOW ACR Y AT FL370. WE COORDINATED FL370 WITH ZMA. MID NEVER CLBED THE ACR Y TO FL370. THIS ACFT GOT TOO CLOSE TO ACR X AND ANOTHER ACFT LATER WITH ZHU AND ZMA. ALL EVENTS OCCURRED IN NON-RADAR CONDITIONS. WITH RADAR, FDIO, AND DIRECT PLT-TO-CTLR COM, THIS DEV WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 248387: 2 SCHEDULED ACRS WERE BOTH AT FL330 CONVERGING AT MARTE INTXN. THE NON-RADAR CTLR ASKED MID CTR TO MOVE ONE OF THE ACFT TO FL370 AND WAS TOLD THAT THE ACFT WOULD BE AT FL370. WE LATER FOUND OUT THE ACFT WAS STILL AT FL330. THIS PUT THE ACFT IN CONFLICT WITH 2 OTHER ACRS. DUE TO LACK OF COM WE ARE NOT IN DIRECT GND-TO-AIR COMS WITH THE ACFT. IF WE HAD COMS WITH THE ACFT FLYING THROUGH THE GULF OF MEXICO, SITS LIKE THIS COULD BE FIXED FASTER. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 248385: TFC IN THE GULF OF MEXICO HAS INCREASED BY OVER 15 PERCENT EACH YR FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YRS. THE RADIO COVERAGE IN THIS AREA IS VERY POOR AND RADAR COVERAGE IS NON-EXISTENT FOR MOST OF THE GULF OF MEXICO. BECAUSE OF THE EQUIP SHORTAGES, THE WORKLOAD FOR OCEANIC CTLRS AT ZHU IS VERY HVY. ACR X SEBOUND CONFLICTED WITH ACR Y NEBOUND (LESS THAN 15 MINS, NON-RADAR OCEANIC SEPARATION).

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.